FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Flagship post-Brexit Australia trade deal ‘not actually very good’
Flagship post-Brexit Australia trade deal ‘not actually very good’
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice" Uk farmers have already stated it was a bad deal and now Eustice has now confirmed it | |||
| |||
"Former Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now he is no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK." FFS!" Nothing most of us didn't know already, pity the electorate haven't the balls to fix it | |||
"Former Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now he is no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK." FFS! Nothing most of us didn't know already, pity the electorate haven't the balls to fix it" Yep and when some of us pointed out how rubbish this deal was, the brexit supporters on here told us we were wrong. All a bit quiet and getting quieter these days! | |||
| |||
"Brexit benefits etc" The only Brexit benefit so far is that the Minister for Brexit Opportunities lost his job and wasn’t replaced! Says it all really  | |||
"Brexit benefits etc The only Brexit benefit so far is that the Minister for Brexit Opportunities lost his job and wasn’t replaced! Says it all really "Quite | |||
"Former Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now he is no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK." FFS! Nothing most of us didn't know already, pity the electorate haven't the balls to fix it Yep and when some of us pointed out how rubbish this deal was, the brexit supporters on here told us we were wrong. All a bit quiet and getting quieter these days!" I think most of them have changed the profile name or created a new one. | |||
"Former Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now he is no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK." FFS! Nothing most of us didn't know already, pity the electorate haven't the balls to fix it Yep and when some of us pointed out how rubbish this deal was, the brexit supporters on here told us we were wrong. All a bit quiet and getting quieter these days! I think most of them have changed the profile name or created a new one." Or have been banned from posting on here  | |||
"Former Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now he is no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK." FFS! Nothing most of us didn't know already, pity the electorate haven't the balls to fix it Yep and when some of us pointed out how rubbish this deal was, the brexit supporters on here told us we were wrong. All a bit quiet and getting quieter these days! I think most of them have changed the profile name or created a new one." Who is Pat these days? I've not been around here a lot lately, so I may be a few profiles behind. | |||
| |||
"Former Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now he is no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK." FFS!" He's just been on R4 and firmly laid the blame on Truss wanting the deal rushed through despite being advised it had flaws.. Truss  | |||
"Good question…. I thought he might have been Seb or Buck but who knows…. It’s a bit quiet without him though and I now have to go into my local paper shop to see the Daily Zmail headlines instead of getting them for free via Pat "Seb only has 1... um... area of interest. And it's not the Tories being marvellous. So he can't be Pat. Buck's tone isn't quite right for Pat either. | |||
| |||
 | |||
"Former Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now he is no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK." FFS! He's just been on R4 and firmly laid the blame on Truss wanting the deal rushed through despite being advised it had flaws.. Truss "Just what we need, the Tories blaming each other and not themselves. It was those other Tories that fucked us up. We're great Tories. Strong and stable | |||
"Former Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now he is no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK." FFS! He's just been on R4 and firmly laid the blame on Truss wanting the deal rushed through despite being advised it had flaws.. Truss
Just what we need, the Tories blaming each other and not themselves.
It was those other Tories that fucked us up. We're great Tories. Strong and stable "The people that voted for Brexit must also assume responsibility | |||
"The people that voted for Brexit must also assume responsibility " The one's that I know that did vote for it have either gone strangely quiet or passed away due to their age. A massively own goal of self-sabotage and clearly should be in The Tower for Treason. | |||
"The people that voted for Brexit must also assume responsibility The one's that I know that did vote for it have either gone strangely quiet or passed away due to their age. A massively own goal of self-sabotage and clearly should be in The Tower for Treason." Perhaps it's time to start a campaign to join the EU | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Free trade always has winners and losers with farmers this time on the losing side but consumers will likely have greater choice on price. I will also add the EU is in the process of doing a free trade deal with Australia and since rejoining will take 3 to 5 years farmers are likely to be in the same boat as they are now." The UK/Aus free trade deal allows for secret courts so corporations can sue the government for compensation if their profits are hit or reduced due to government policy, that is a bad deal unless you lobby a government to change law so you can then sue said government.  | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice" Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. | |||
"Former Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now he is no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK." FFS! Nothing most of us didn't know already, pity the electorate haven't the balls to fix it Yep and when some of us pointed out how rubbish this deal was, the brexit supporters on here told us we were wrong. All a bit quiet and getting quieter these days!" Yes, but it gave us back control of our borders...... | |||
"Free trade always has winners and losers with farmers this time on the losing side but consumers will likely have greater choice on price. I will also add the EU is in the process of doing a free trade deal with Australia and since rejoining will take 3 to 5 years farmers are likely to be in the same boat as they are now. The UK/Aus free trade deal allows for secret courts so corporations can sue the government for compensation if their profits are hit or reduced due to government policy, that is a bad deal unless you lobby a government to change law so you can then sue said government. "That happens in the EU too with at the moment French State owned EDF suing the French government. | |||
"I agree with the need for a 66 per cent majority as a concept for a referendum but as the leave one was only a simple majority I think it’s only fair that a referendum to rejoin should be on the same terms " And in future on major changes such as this. There should be a referendum to take us in. I would have had no problem with reverting back to status quo pre maastricht and having a referendum on that. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements." Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements." So we shouldn't believe Brexit supporting former Tory Ministers? Who then? Liz Truss who has over-delivered consistently throughout her career? We provided access to EU meet and were able to sell ours there and appeared to be doing so pretty successfully. This will, apparently be worse. Watch what happens if China shuts it's market to Australian meat. The deal does look pretty crap and designed to get a political "win" rather than achieve anything particularly useful for people. Particularly on the basis that Australia is on the other side of the planet rather than next door. You think it's worthwhile then. Good for you. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? " You can read it yourself. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. So we shouldn't believe Brexit supporting former Tory Ministers? Who then? Liz Truss who has over-delivered consistently throughout her career? We provided access to EU meet and were able to sell ours there and appeared to be doing so pretty successfully. This will, apparently be worse. Watch what happens if China shuts it's market to Australian meat. The deal does look pretty crap and designed to get a political "win" rather than achieve anything particularly useful for people. Particularly on the basis that Australia is on the other side of the planet rather than next door. You think it's worthwhile then. Good for you." So was he lying here then? Which 1 is it..he's lying now? Or lying then. Feel free to pick. Either way. It doesn't bode well | |||
| |||
| |||
"So other than the tarriff free quota over 10 years (btw we have immediate 0% tarriff to australia) What other parts of the deal do you think are bad? I have actually read it in its entirety. I would love to know your thoughts." This is an interesting reply. Out of interest, why would you be reading the whole trade deal? | |||
"So other than the tarriff free quota over 10 years (btw we have immediate 0% tarriff to australia) What other parts of the deal do you think are bad? I have actually read it in its entirety. I would love to know your thoughts. This is an interesting reply. Out of interest, why would you be reading the whole trade deal? " I have read every single new deal. To deal with disonformation . Particularly from lying remained accounts on other social media websites and sadly the likes of James o brien etc spreading it on the radio. Sadly even in this day of the the information superhighway where people can download these deals and read them themselves.cpeople would just torefer to hear what the confirmation bias presenter they listen to says. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself." You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice, | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice, "He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal. Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself? | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?"He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his "What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read? What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office? If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on "He knows more than you do, | |||
"Why would China shut its market to Australian meat? Austrian meat can't all be exported here. Only certain abattoirs and farms that have been green listed can. There's also a 10 year quote phasing. We could export our more expensive meat to the e.u And they would import their cheaper meat here. And the uk meat industry survived. Sort of undermines the argument really doesn't it , that cheap meat will destroy the uk farmers industry " Why would they not limit or ban Australian meat as a punishment or just naturally due to economics? Geopolitics is a thing. How naive to think otherwise. What they do send will displace what is produced here as British exports to the EU are restricted due to the export regulations. Do the Australians want our expensive meat on the other side of the world compared to their high volume, low cost Australian meat? You think that ten years is a long time for a persistent set of circumstances? As per the OP, who do we believe? Not any Ministers, even if they were involved in the negotiations and have better access to information and analysis than you? Not any "remainers". Not the Government analysis that that "it would raise total UK exports by 0.4 per cent, imports by 0.4 per cent and the level of GDP by only 0.1 per cent over 15 years"? Not farmers? Not the Economist or FT? You think the UK Australia Trade deal is positive, having read it yourself as you don't believe "remainer" propaganda? Interested to find out what your "unbiased" conclusion of benefits is compared to those of actual experts... | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do, "So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal. | |||
"Why would China shut its market to Australian meat? Austrian meat can't all be exported here. Only certain abattoirs and farms that have been green listed can. There's also a 10 year quote phasing. We could export our more expensive meat to the e.u And they would import their cheaper meat here. And the uk meat industry survived. Sort of undermines the argument really doesn't it , that cheap meat will destroy the uk farmers industry Why would they not limit or ban Australian meat as a punishment or just naturally due to economics? Geopolitics is a thing. How naive to think otherwise. What they do send will displace what is produced here as British exports to the EU are restricted due to the export regulations. Do the Australians want our expensive meat on the other side of the world compared to their high volume, low cost Australian meat? You think that ten years is a long time for a persistent set of circumstances? As per the OP, who do we believe? Not any Ministers, even if they were involved in the negotiations and have better access to information and analysis than you? Not any "remainers". Not the Government analysis that that "it would raise total UK exports by 0.4 per cent, imports by 0.4 per cent and the level of GDP by only 0.1 per cent over 15 years"? Not farmers? Not the Economist or FT? You think the UK Australia Trade deal is positive, having read it yourself as you don't believe "remainer" propaganda? Interested to find out what your "unbiased" conclusion of benefits is compared to those of actual experts..." Why would you ban Australian meat? I am not even sure you can under GATT rules. What punishment do you think aussies deserve? And what for? It won't replace the domestic market. Our meat is already re expensive than e.u meat by carcass kg. This data is available on adhb. It would replace the cheaper Irish Dutch and Polish meat. An analogy on uk products vs e.u/Australia Aldi doesn't take waitrose customers. They take asda and testosterone customers. What do you believe George eustices role was in negotiations. Again your logic fails, because if you believe ministers in negotiations. He was not the minister in charge of them. That was liz truss. So your own logic is saying you should believe liz truss over him. You might want to think that stance through. Yes the deal is good infact our exports tonaustralia are expected to increase at a far higher rate and the aussies exports to us we are net beneficiaries by about 3bn per annum in extra export trade. And those only from the static model. | |||
"Why would China shut its market to Australian meat? Austrian meat can't all be exported here. Only certain abattoirs and farms that have been green listed can. There's also a 10 year quote phasing. We could export our more expensive meat to the e.u And they would import their cheaper meat here. And the uk meat industry survived. Sort of undermines the argument really doesn't it , that cheap meat will destroy the uk farmers industry Why would they not limit or ban Australian meat as a punishment or just naturally due to economics? Geopolitics is a thing. How naive to think otherwise. What they do send will displace what is produced here as British exports to the EU are restricted due to the export regulations. Do the Australians want our expensive meat on the other side of the world compared to their high volume, low cost Australian meat? You think that ten years is a long time for a persistent set of circumstances? As per the OP, who do we believe? Not any Ministers, even if they were involved in the negotiations and have better access to information and analysis than you? Not any "remainers". Not the Government analysis that that "it would raise total UK exports by 0.4 per cent, imports by 0.4 per cent and the level of GDP by only 0.1 per cent over 15 years"? Not farmers? Not the Economist or FT? You think the UK Australia Trade deal is positive, having read it yourself as you don't believe "remainer" propaganda? Interested to find out what your "unbiased" conclusion of benefits is compared to those of actual experts... Why would you ban Australian meat? I am not even sure you can under GATT rules. What punishment do you think aussies deserve? And what for? It won't replace the domestic market. Our meat is already re expensive than e.u meat by carcass kg. This data is available on adhb. It would replace the cheaper Irish Dutch and Polish meat. An analogy on uk products vs e.u/Australia Aldi doesn't take waitrose customers. They take asda and testosterone customers. What do you believe George eustices role was in negotiations. Again your logic fails, because if you believe ministers in negotiations. He was not the minister in charge of them. That was liz truss. So your own logic is saying you should believe liz truss over him. You might want to think that stance through. Yes the deal is good infact our exports tonaustralia are expected to increase at a far higher rate and the aussies exports to us we are net beneficiaries by about 3bn per annum in extra export trade. And those only from the static model. " Just ban barbecues! That'll teach em. I gather the Aussies love a barbie! | |||
"Why would China shut its market to Australian meat? Austrian meat can't all be exported here. Only certain abattoirs and farms that have been green listed can. There's also a 10 year quote phasing. We could export our more expensive meat to the e.u And they would import their cheaper meat here. And the uk meat industry survived. Sort of undermines the argument really doesn't it , that cheap meat will destroy the uk farmers industry Why would they not limit or ban Australian meat as a punishment or just naturally due to economics? Geopolitics is a thing. How naive to think otherwise. What they do send will displace what is produced here as British exports to the EU are restricted due to the export regulations. Do the Australians want our expensive meat on the other side of the world compared to their high volume, low cost Australian meat? You think that ten years is a long time for a persistent set of circumstances? As per the OP, who do we believe? Not any Ministers, even if they were involved in the negotiations and have better access to information and analysis than you? Not any "remainers". Not the Government analysis that that "it would raise total UK exports by 0.4 per cent, imports by 0.4 per cent and the level of GDP by only 0.1 per cent over 15 years"? Not farmers? Not the Economist or FT? You think the UK Australia Trade deal is positive, having read it yourself as you don't believe "remainer" propaganda? Interested to find out what your "unbiased" conclusion of benefits is compared to those of actual experts... Why would you ban Australian meat? I am not even sure you can under GATT rules. What punishment do you think aussies deserve? And what for? It won't replace the domestic market. Our meat is already re expensive than e.u meat by carcass kg. This data is available on adhb. It would replace the cheaper Irish Dutch and Polish meat. An analogy on uk products vs e.u/Australia Aldi doesn't take waitrose customers. They take asda and testosterone customers. What do you believe George eustices role was in negotiations. Again your logic fails, because if you believe ministers in negotiations. He was not the minister in charge of them. That was liz truss. So your own logic is saying you should believe liz truss over him. You might want to think that stance through. Yes the deal is good infact our exports tonaustralia are expected to increase at a far higher rate and the aussies exports to us we are net beneficiaries by about 3bn per annum in extra export trade. And those only from the static model. " “Testosterone customers” now that was an ironic autocorrect
Gotta love that hormone injected meat | |||
"Why would China shut its market to Australian meat? Austrian meat can't all be exported here. Only certain abattoirs and farms that have been green listed can. There's also a 10 year quote phasing. We could export our more expensive meat to the e.u And they would import their cheaper meat here. And the uk meat industry survived. Sort of undermines the argument really doesn't it , that cheap meat will destroy the uk farmers industry Why would they not limit or ban Australian meat as a punishment or just naturally due to economics? Geopolitics is a thing. How naive to think otherwise. What they do send will displace what is produced here as British exports to the EU are restricted due to the export regulations. Do the Australians want our expensive meat on the other side of the world compared to their high volume, low cost Australian meat? You think that ten years is a long time for a persistent set of circumstances? As per the OP, who do we believe? Not any Ministers, even if they were involved in the negotiations and have better access to information and analysis than you? Not any "remainers". Not the Government analysis that that "it would raise total UK exports by 0.4 per cent, imports by 0.4 per cent and the level of GDP by only 0.1 per cent over 15 years"? Not farmers? Not the Economist or FT? You think the UK Australia Trade deal is positive, having read it yourself as you don't believe "remainer" propaganda? Interested to find out what your "unbiased" conclusion of benefits is compared to those of actual experts... Why would you ban Australian meat? I am not even sure you can under GATT rules. What punishment do you think aussies deserve? And what for? It won't replace the domestic market. Our meat is already re expensive than e.u meat by carcass kg. This data is available on adhb. It would replace the cheaper Irish Dutch and Polish meat. An analogy on uk products vs e.u/Australia Aldi doesn't take waitrose customers. They take asda and testosterone customers. What do you believe George eustices role was in negotiations. Again your logic fails, because if you believe ministers in negotiations. He was not the minister in charge of them. That was liz truss. So your own logic is saying you should believe liz truss over him. You might want to think that stance through. Yes the deal is good infact our exports tonaustralia are expected to increase at a far higher rate and the aussies exports to us we are net beneficiaries by about 3bn per annum in extra export trade. And those only from the static model. “Testosterone customers” now that was an ironic autocorrect
Gotta love that hormone injected meat"Tesco* | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal."Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
| |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
"Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them? Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it? Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone? It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance. | |||
"Why would China shut its market to Australian meat?" ... If you knew a single thing about Asia-Pacific geopolitics, you wouldn't be asking this question  | |||
"Why would China shut its market to Australian meat? ... If you knew a single thing about Asia-Pacific geopolitics, you wouldn't be asking this question "Feel free to highlight the particular issue that we are currently dealing with in international politics that means this will happen. | |||
"Why would China shut its market to Australian meat? ... If you knew a single thing about Asia-Pacific geopolitics, you wouldn't be asking this question
Feel free to highlight the particular issue that we are currently dealing with in international politics that means this will happen."I like how you define the question. So as to exclude certain possibilities. Clever. Rhetoric over truth. Cool beans. Meanwhile, although Australia has been on a "pivot to Asia" for over 30 years, China sometimes responds to Australian political moves by restrictions on trade or (usually implicit) threats to journalists in China (many of whom have now withdrawn, as the relationship is not going well). | |||
| |||
"Why would China shut its market to Australian meat? ... If you knew a single thing about Asia-Pacific geopolitics, you wouldn't be asking this question
Feel free to highlight the particular issue that we are currently dealing with in international politics that means this will happen.
I like how you define the question. So as to exclude certain possibilities. Clever. Rhetoric over truth. Cool beans.
Meanwhile, although Australia has been on a "pivot to Asia" for over 30 years, China sometimes responds to Australian political moves by restrictions on trade or (usually implicit) threats to journalists in China (many of whom have now withdrawn, as the relationship is not going well). "What possibilities...I am asking you what specifically right now would lead to it...we can all dream ups canaries in our heads. But that's all they are dreams and hypotheticals. So please highlight a current issue China would use to restrict meat There are certain other aspects I haven't even begun to deal with yet about the "flooding the market" as it simply can't happen. But I want you to justify that position first | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance."Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ? | |||
"We all know what's in the trade deal. Not sure anyone can know more than anyone else if both have read it. Eustace knows more about what happened in the negotiations. That's probably the point here, he's claiming that it could have been better. However it is always worth questioning whether what he is telling is is the full truth. He may have motivations for throwing Truss under the bus. To get back at her ? To protect his career? Why now? Some answers may be legitimate. But it is right to question and not accept it because it aligns with our veiws in the FTA or brexit (And I say this as someone who voted remain, think the Aussie fta was likely rushed. Although given it doesn't change the dial, the overall so what of rushing it was probably negligible.)" Agree the uk gave a self imposed deadline it wanted it done. We absolutely won on the services side and exports. We chose to give unlimited access in 10 years because we know our meat is at a premium. Eustice had little to do with negotiations. And certainly wouldn't know more than liz. And interma of the reality of the deal doesn't know more than any member of the public who has read the deal. At best you can critique it for saying other clutnries may want similar access that Australia got. But again. You are asking who is going to be replaced in this market. Uk meat is the premium meat. Most out industry is considered the higher standard British steel etc, Aston Martin. Red tractor foods. Higher food standards. We'd be more under threat from liberalisation to Japan and wagyu beef for example for Aberdeen Angus. | |||
"Why would China shut its market to Australian meat? ... If you knew a single thing about Asia-Pacific geopolitics, you wouldn't be asking this question
Feel free to highlight the particular issue that we are currently dealing with in international politics that means this will happen.
I like how you define the question. So as to exclude certain possibilities. Clever. Rhetoric over truth. Cool beans.
Meanwhile, although Australia has been on a "pivot to Asia" for over 30 years, China sometimes responds to Australian political moves by restrictions on trade or (usually implicit) threats to journalists in China (many of whom have now withdrawn, as the relationship is not going well).
What possibilities...I am asking you what specifically right now would lead to it...we can all dream ups canaries in our heads. But that's all they are dreams and hypotheticals.
So please highlight a current issue China would use to restrict meat
There are certain other aspects I haven't even begun to deal with yet about the "flooding the market" as it simply can't happen.
But I want you to justify that position first
"You asked why China would shut its market. Initially. The fact that you immediately return with a substantial narrowing of your question is telling. I'm not playing that game. I answered your initial question. It's very clear. Unfortunately Sino Australian relations don't give a fuck about Brexit wank fantasies | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ? "So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself. And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow. Again. How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them? | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?"... Someone who has been involved in making the laws, whose party is involved in the negotiations, the secondary legislation, the off the record discussions etc - would know less than a random with an internet connection who's downloaded a PDF? c'mon, get real | |||
| |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?"Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal? | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/free-trade-agreement-between-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-australia Feel free to read and tell me the capitulations." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63627801.amp Feel free to read this | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal? "Morely you are a smart fella and widely read but sometimes your assertions are naive at best. Do you have first hand knowledge of how inter and intra departmental briefing takes place? You really think all he has to go on is the public facing document? You really think he was not sighted and briefed throughout the development of draft negotiation papers and throughout the negotiations themselves? You really don’t think Ministers are kept in the dark on matters that impact on areas within their purview and are unable to put forward counter proposals or hold discussions with the lead negotiation team? | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal? "As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/free-trade-agreement-between-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-australia Feel free to read and tell me the capitulations. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63627801.amp Feel free to read this " I have seen it. This is the point we are addressing | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions"If you think that expertise means that someone can't be criticised, your understanding is several levels below entry level. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
Morely you are a smart fella and widely read but sometimes your assertions are naive at best.
Do you have first hand knowledge of how inter and intra departmental briefing takes place? You really think all he has to go on is the public facing document? You really think he was not sighted and briefed throughout the development of draft negotiation papers and throughout the negotiations themselves? You really don’t think Ministers are kept in the dark on matters that impact on areas within their purview and are unable to put forward counter proposals or hold discussions with the lead negotiation team? "You don't have to. Because all those meeting jave resulted in this fta. So when talking about " capitulation" and " over liberlaisation" the actual agreement is available to be read. So regardless of how we got there and the discussions that took place. The ultimate result is freely available tk be read. This is simply a matter of fact. No 1 can have any more or less knowledge on the result of the fta. Because the fta is publicly available to be read. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions"For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
If you think that expertise means that someone can't be criticised, your understanding is several levels below entry level."You are sadly contradicting your friend. Who has said that eursice is an expert and I can't criticis ehim. So you have countered his point. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility "For the last time. He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal. It's a purely a able document to read. How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read? | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/free-trade-agreement-between-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-australia Feel free to read and tell me the capitulations. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63627801.amp Feel free to read this I have seen it. This is the point we are addressing" https://www.ft.com/content/a9ce4564-930f-439a-ac42-d9b055712ee6 Feel free to read, | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
If you think that expertise means that someone can't be criticised, your understanding is several levels below entry level.
You are sadly contradicting your friend.
Who has said that eursice is an expert and I can't criticis ehim.
So you have countered his point."I quote you "So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions" The person I happen to agree with is not saying that experts can't be criticised, he's saying Eustice has more credibility and more reason to know things than you do. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read? "Just because you have read something something doesn’t mean you understand it, which has been proven by your posts, | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
If you think that expertise means that someone can't be criticised, your understanding is several levels below entry level.
You are sadly contradicting your friend.
Who has said that eursice is an expert and I can't criticis ehim.
So you have countered his point.
I quote you
"So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions"
The person I happen to agree with is not saying that experts can't be criticised, he's saying Eustice has more credibility and more reason to know things than you do. "He is saying I can't criticise him because he is an expert. Nothing actually backs up the expert claim though. Other than them being a minister. Do you see the logical flaw. So then any minister MUST now be an expert. And give LiZ truss was the minister for these deals she must be the expert in that area. Do you not see the complete contradiction here? | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
Morely you are a smart fella and widely read but sometimes your assertions are naive at best.
Do you have first hand knowledge of how inter and intra departmental briefing takes place? You really think all he has to go on is the public facing document? You really think he was not sighted and briefed throughout the development of draft negotiation papers and throughout the negotiations themselves? You really don’t think Ministers are kept in the dark on matters that impact on areas within their purview and are unable to put forward counter proposals or hold discussions with the lead negotiation team?
You don't have to.
Because all those meeting jave resulted in this fta.
So when talking about " capitulation" and " over liberlaisation" the actual agreement is available to be read.
So regardless of how we got there and the discussions that took place. The ultimate result is freely available tk be read.
This is simply a matter of fact. No 1 can have any more or less knowledge on the result of the fta. Because the fta is publicly available to be read."No! Because the negotiating positions and starting points for discussions are not included in the published FTA only the final outcome. Neither you or I have any idea of what initial red lines there were or what wriggle room was allowed for during negotiations. You or I therefore cannot know exactly what concessions or capitulations took place over the course of the negotiations. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
Just because you have read something something doesn’t mean you understand it, which has been proven by your posts, "I can guarantee tee I have a .Uchida better understanding from having read it than some 1 relying on a headline and a minister sacked by liz truss. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read? "So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context? There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document? That seems spectacularly naive. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
If you think that expertise means that someone can't be criticised, your understanding is several levels below entry level.
You are sadly contradicting your friend.
Who has said that eursice is an expert and I can't criticis ehim.
So you have countered his point.
I quote you
"So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions"
The person I happen to agree with is not saying that experts can't be criticised, he's saying Eustice has more credibility and more reason to know things than you do.
He is saying I can't criticise him because he is an expert. Nothing actually backs up the expert claim though. Other than them being a minister.
Do you see the logical flaw.
So then any minister MUST now be an expert. And give LiZ truss was the minister for these deals she must be the expert in that area.
Do you not see the complete contradiction here?"Err. No. I see a failure in your reading comprehension. And a simplistic view of expertise on your part. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
Morely you are a smart fella and widely read but sometimes your assertions are naive at best.
Do you have first hand knowledge of how inter and intra departmental briefing takes place? You really think all he has to go on is the public facing document? You really think he was not sighted and briefed throughout the development of draft negotiation papers and throughout the negotiations themselves? You really don’t think Ministers are kept in the dark on matters that impact on areas within their purview and are unable to put forward counter proposals or hold discussions with the lead negotiation team?
You don't have to.
Because all those meeting jave resulted in this fta.
So when talking about " capitulation" and " over liberlaisation" the actual agreement is available to be read.
So regardless of how we got there and the discussions that took place. The ultimate result is freely available tk be read.
This is simply a matter of fact. No 1 can have any more or less knowledge on the result of the fta. Because the fta is publicly available to be read.
No!
Because the negotiating positions and starting points for discussions are not included in the published FTA only the final outcome.
Neither you or I have any idea of what initial red lines there were or what wriggle room was allowed for during negotiations. You or I therefore cannot know exactly what concessions or capitulations took place over the course of the negotiations. "You know the starting position...the original mfn stance. Seriously this is kids stuff. If you are talking red lines. We have dealt with this further above. The uk previously gave unfettered access to 27 other nations. 2 mor nations 10k miles away don't make a difference vs Ireland And his main criticism. Was tbe ultimate liberalisation of the quota. Again. There was no quota for 27 other e.u members. So why did he not have a problem with that. Ultimately again. At the conclusion of the deal he's bo more I formed on tbe impact than I. Because you can see the agreed details yourself | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive."Not for the ultimate impact no. All impact assessment are published too. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too."Again: naive. Eustice will have more access to that than you. He's involved in law making, which gives him a level of technical knowledge you don't have. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
Just because you have read something something doesn’t mean you understand it, which has been proven by your posts,
I can guarantee tee I have a .Uchida better understanding from having read it than some 1 relying on a headline and a minister sacked by liz truss."Really? | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
Morely you are a smart fella and widely read but sometimes your assertions are naive at best.
Do you have first hand knowledge of how inter and intra departmental briefing takes place? You really think all he has to go on is the public facing document? You really think he was not sighted and briefed throughout the development of draft negotiation papers and throughout the negotiations themselves? You really don’t think Ministers are kept in the dark on matters that impact on areas within their purview and are unable to put forward counter proposals or hold discussions with the lead negotiation team?
You don't have to.
Because all those meeting jave resulted in this fta.
So when talking about " capitulation" and " over liberlaisation" the actual agreement is available to be read.
So regardless of how we got there and the discussions that took place. The ultimate result is freely available tk be read.
This is simply a matter of fact. No 1 can have any more or less knowledge on the result of the fta. Because the fta is publicly available to be read.
No!
Because the negotiating positions and starting points for discussions are not included in the published FTA only the final outcome.
Neither you or I have any idea of what initial red lines there were or what wriggle room was allowed for during negotiations. You or I therefore cannot know exactly what concessions or capitulations took place over the course of the negotiations.
You know the starting position...the original mfn stance.
Seriously this is kids stuff.
If you are talking red lines. We have dealt with this further above. The uk previously gave unfettered access to 27 other nations. 2 mor nations 10k miles away don't make a difference vs Ireland
And his main criticism. Was tbe ultimate liberalisation of the quota. Again. There was no quota for 27 other e.u members.
So why did he not have a problem with that.
Ultimately again. At the conclusion of the deal he's bo more I formed on tbe impact than I. Because you can see the agreed details yourself"Because be put party and a need to prove the positive benefits if brexit before actual benefits to country and constituents. You have zero insight into the (drafting, review, debate etc) journey from A to B you simply know about a document that describes B. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Again: naive.
Eustice will have more access to that than you. He's involved in law making, which gives him a level of technical knowledge you don't have."What tehcnical knowledge do you think he had access to? What law making do you think needed to be involved. More access to impact assessments. Which ones do you think he had access to | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too."Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
Morely you are a smart fella and widely read but sometimes your assertions are naive at best.
Do you have first hand knowledge of how inter and intra departmental briefing takes place? You really think all he has to go on is the public facing document? You really think he was not sighted and briefed throughout the development of draft negotiation papers and throughout the negotiations themselves? You really don’t think Ministers are kept in the dark on matters that impact on areas within their purview and are unable to put forward counter proposals or hold discussions with the lead negotiation team?
You don't have to.
Because all those meeting jave resulted in this fta.
So when talking about " capitulation" and " over liberlaisation" the actual agreement is available to be read.
So regardless of how we got there and the discussions that took place. The ultimate result is freely available tk be read.
This is simply a matter of fact. No 1 can have any more or less knowledge on the result of the fta. Because the fta is publicly available to be read.
No!
Because the negotiating positions and starting points for discussions are not included in the published FTA only the final outcome.
Neither you or I have any idea of what initial red lines there were or what wriggle room was allowed for during negotiations. You or I therefore cannot know exactly what concessions or capitulations took place over the course of the negotiations.
You know the starting position...the original mfn stance.
Seriously this is kids stuff.
If you are talking red lines. We have dealt with this further above. The uk previously gave unfettered access to 27 other nations. 2 mor nations 10k miles away don't make a difference vs Ireland
And his main criticism. Was tbe ultimate liberalisation of the quota. Again. There was no quota for 27 other e.u members.
So why did he not have a problem with that.
Ultimately again. At the conclusion of the deal he's bo more I formed on tbe impact than I. Because you can see the agreed details yourself
Because be put party and a need to prove the positive benefits if brexit before actual benefits to country and constituents.
You have zero insight into the (drafting, review, debate etc) journey from A to B you simply know about a document that describes B. "But for tbe impact...the area he criticised you don't need tk be in tbe meetings. That's tbe point. His criticism was tbe full liberalisation. No amount of meetings changes that. The document is available to be read. The impact assessments available. As discussed Australia has a quote already eith tbe uk to export to us. A d it doesn't use it all. Neither does new zealand. So what is his complaint? | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable. "Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them"Apart from yourself, Thick Lizzie and the Australians who else has claimed this is a good deal for the UK? | |||
" Again: naive. Eustice will have more access to that than you. He's involved in law making, which gives him a level of technical knowledge you don't have. What tehcnical knowledge do you think he had access to? What law making do you think needed to be involved. More access to impact assessments. Which ones do you think he had access to " The ins and outs of law and treaty making. He'll have seen it behind the scenes as a politician in a way you or I do not. The way that impact assessments are written, the way they might be skewed for political gain (even if they're not suppressed). Are you seriously arguing that someone who has read a document can know more about how it's created than those involved in its creation (or their peers)? | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Apart from yourself, Thick Lizzie and the Australians who else has claimed this is a good deal for the UK? "The impact assessment. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them"So you're right unless we can get things we don't have? Don't be ridiculous. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Apart from yourself, Thick Lizzie and the Australians who else has claimed this is a good deal for the UK?
The impact assessment."Who wrote the impact assessment? Can you give me some high profile names that have endorsed this deal? | |||
" Again: naive. Eustice will have more access to that than you. He's involved in law making, which gives him a level of technical knowledge you don't have. What tehcnical knowledge do you think he had access to? What law making do you think needed to be involved. More access to impact assessments. Which ones do you think he had access to The ins and outs of law and treaty making. He'll have seen it behind the scenes as a politician in a way you or I do not. The way that impact assessments are written, the way they might be skewed for political gain (even if they're not suppressed). Are you seriously arguing that someone who has read a document can know more about how it's created than those involved in its creation (or their peers)? " That is exactly what he is claiming, it is embarrassing | |||
" Again: naive. Eustice will have more access to that than you. He's involved in law making, which gives him a level of technical knowledge you don't have. What tehcnical knowledge do you think he had access to? What law making do you think needed to be involved. More access to impact assessments. Which ones do you think he had access to The ins and outs of law and treaty making. He'll have seen it behind the scenes as a politician in a way you or I do not. The way that impact assessments are written, the way they might be skewed for political gain (even if they're not suppressed). Are you seriously arguing that someone who has read a document can know more about how it's created than those involved in its creation (or their peers)? " Then describe what you think he had access to That ultimately led to his conclusion at the publishment of the fta that it wasn't a good deal. Why did he originally lie? I am arguing the point that his criticism is about the conclusion of the document. Regardless of what went on before. His criticism is aimed what it contains. Hence the full liberalisation critique. But he and you clearly don't know how it works As was alluded to above but very nicely dodged when I queried about Australia dumping its beef. Australia has a quota currently for its meat exports to the uk. It can currently send some here tarriff free. It can then send prime cuts etc under a quotaand initial tarriff Then it can send some via a higher tarriff Each farm has to be signed off for export by the uk as following the uk import requirements ( meeting out standards) Australia can not simply dump its meat on the uk. It has a quota for 10 years. In that quota only a set amount of abattoirs and farms can rear and kill animals to send to the uk. It then must send them over 10k miles to the uk. It must then hope that the uk consumer for some reasons think that the Australian beef is of higher quality than uk meat or hope it has undercut the e u meat market. Because as stated. The e.u coutnries have had complete free access to the uk market for 2 decades and still the uk meat industry has survived.  | |||
" Again: naive. Eustice will have more access to that than you. He's involved in law making, which gives him a level of technical knowledge you don't have. What tehcnical knowledge do you think he had access to? What law making do you think needed to be involved. More access to impact assessments. Which ones do you think he had access to The ins and outs of law and treaty making. He'll have seen it behind the scenes as a politician in a way you or I do not. The way that impact assessments are written, the way they might be skewed for political gain (even if they're not suppressed). Are you seriously arguing that someone who has read a document can know more about how it's created than those involved in its creation (or their peers)? That is exactly what he is claiming, it is embarrassing " No it's not. And the fact you think I am shows your inability to make a decent argument. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
So you're right unless we can get things we don't have?
Don't be ridiculous."So as touched on before. You have dreamt up an imaginary scenario where you thought a minister for agriculture had more details on the minister for trade. A minister you have freely admitted has already lied about the trade deal I the commons. You want to back that horse? | |||
" Again: naive. Eustice will have more access to that than you. He's involved in law making, which gives him a level of technical knowledge you don't have. What tehcnical knowledge do you think he had access to? What law making do you think needed to be involved. More access to impact assessments. Which ones do you think he had access to The ins and outs of law and treaty making. He'll have seen it behind the scenes as a politician in a way you or I do not. The way that impact assessments are written, the way they might be skewed for political gain (even if they're not suppressed). Are you seriously arguing that someone who has read a document can know more about how it's created than those involved in its creation (or their peers)? That is exactly what he is claiming, it is embarrassing No it's not. And the fact you think I am shows your inability to make a decent argument." It is embarrassing | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them"Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said! To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
So you're right unless we can get things we don't have?
Don't be ridiculous.
So as touched on before.
You have dreamt up an imaginary scenario where you thought a minister for agriculture had more details on the minister for trade.
A minister you have freely admitted has already lied about the trade deal I the commons.
You want to back that horse?"And your backing Thick Lizzie, the worst PM in history and the women who tanked the economy | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
So you're right unless we can get things we don't have?
Don't be ridiculous.
So as touched on before.
You have dreamt up an imaginary scenario where you thought a minister for agriculture had more details on the minister for trade.
A minister you have freely admitted has already lied about the trade deal I the commons.
You want to back that horse?
And your backing Thick Lizzie, the worst PM in history and the women who tanked the economy "Nice soundbit with little substance. But that all it is | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
So you're right unless we can get things we don't have?
Don't be ridiculous.
So as touched on before.
You have dreamt up an imaginary scenario where you thought a minister for agriculture had more details on the minister for trade.
A minister you have freely admitted has already lied about the trade deal I the commons.
You want to back that horse?
And your backing Thick Lizzie, the worst PM in history and the women who tanked the economy
Nice soundbit with little substance.
But that all it is"It was in response to your soundbite that had little substance | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said!
To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do."The discussion s about eustice words and the outcome. Of the deal. I have put the explainer of the absurdity of tbe assertion above. Regardless of meetings, reports. He's no more clued up on tbe result( the bit he's criticising) than Joe blogging who read it. Any talk of secret report and assessment is just that. Until they are released. It's not typical in FTAs that you would have time to do impact assessments after each round. Otherwise ftas would take decades. It takes 3 months just to do the impact assessment post agreement. Imagine doing it after each round of talks. Imagine the e.u trying to do that for 27 nations. Son until youncan provide proof. It's just a wild claim. And ultimately it doesn't affect the stance of the criticism of the deal at its conclusion. By some one who you guys have admitted. It a proven liar | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said!
To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do.
The discussion s about eustice words and the outcome. Of the deal.
I have put the explainer of the absurdity of tbe assertion above.
Regardless of meetings, reports. He's no more clued up on tbe result( the bit he's criticising) than Joe blogging who read it.
Any talk of secret report and assessment is just that. Until they are released.
It's not typical in FTAs that you would have time to do impact assessments after each round. Otherwise ftas would take decades. It takes 3 months just to do the impact assessment post agreement. Imagine doing it after each round of talks.
Imagine the e.u trying to do that for 27 nations.
Son until youncan provide proof. It's just a wild claim.
And ultimately it doesn't affect the stance of the criticism of the deal at its conclusion. By some one who you guys have admitted. It a proven liar "This basically comes down to a simple choice, do you believe George Eustice or do you believe Thick Lizzie. BTW, do you believe everything you read in impact assessment reports  | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
So you're right unless we can get things we don't have?
Don't be ridiculous.
So as touched on before.
You have dreamt up an imaginary scenario where you thought a minister for agriculture had more details on the minister for trade.
A minister you have freely admitted has already lied about the trade deal I the commons.
You want to back that horse?"No, I'm saying that a minister knows more about the situation than you do, due to their proximity to the deal. And a deal with Australia *might* have something to do with agriculture. Maybe
Yes, I'm sure Eustice has lied about many things. As have all politicians.
I'm starting from the fairly uncontroversial position that politicians are known to tell lies (Liz Truss is also a politician, in case you hadn't noticed), but also that politicians know more about the inner workings of *their jobs* than Joe Public. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said!
To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do.
The discussion s about eustice words and the outcome. Of the deal.
I have put the explainer of the absurdity of tbe assertion above.
Regardless of meetings, reports. He's no more clued up on tbe result( the bit he's criticising) than Joe blogging who read it.
Any talk of secret report and assessment is just that. Until they are released.
It's not typical in FTAs that you would have time to do impact assessments after each round. Otherwise ftas would take decades. It takes 3 months just to do the impact assessment post agreement. Imagine doing it after each round of talks.
Imagine the e.u trying to do that for 27 nations.
Son until youncan provide proof. It's just a wild claim.
And ultimately it doesn't affect the stance of the criticism of the deal at its conclusion. By some one who you guys have admitted. It a proven liar "As I said, you don’t really understand the inner workings of the UK government and full remit of the Civil Service (by the way, FTAs do indeed take years rather than being rushed through, quite correct and all about due diligence as the stakes are so high). | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said!
To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do.
The discussion s about eustice words and the outcome. Of the deal.
I have put the explainer of the absurdity of tbe assertion above.
Regardless of meetings, reports. He's no more clued up on tbe result( the bit he's criticising) than Joe blogging who read it.
Any talk of secret report and assessment is just that. Until they are released.
It's not typical in FTAs that you would have time to do impact assessments after each round. Otherwise ftas would take decades. It takes 3 months just to do the impact assessment post agreement. Imagine doing it after each round of talks.
Imagine the e.u trying to do that for 27 nations.
Son until youncan provide proof. It's just a wild claim.
And ultimately it doesn't affect the stance of the criticism of the deal at its conclusion. By some one who you guys have admitted. It a proven liar
As I said, you don’t really understand the inner workings of the UK government and full remit of the Civil Service (by the way, FTAs do indeed take years rather than being rushed through, quite correct and all about due diligence as the stakes are so high)."Surely due diligence is a tyrannical EU directive, overridden by sunlit uplands? | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
So you're right unless we can get things we don't have?
Don't be ridiculous.
So as touched on before.
You have dreamt up an imaginary scenario where you thought a minister for agriculture had more details on the minister for trade.
A minister you have freely admitted has already lied about the trade deal I the commons.
You want to back that horse?
No, I'm saying that a minister knows more about the situation than you do, due to their proximity to the deal.
And a deal with Australia *might* have something to do with agriculture. Maybe
Yes, I'm sure Eustice has lied about many things. As have all politicians.
I'm starting from the fairly uncontroversial position that politicians are known to tell lies (Liz Truss is also a politician, in case you hadn't noticed), but also that politicians know more about the inner workings of *their jobs* than Joe Public."They will know more about individual discussion what's originally tabled...but as I say again. The conclusion( which is what we are dealing with...no. they dont) They have the same data from the same reports as those made available to the public. They jave the same signed document as the public can see and assess. It is the criticism of the signed document and trade liberalisation we are dealing with. So no on this particular discussion she is NOT more informed | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
So you're right unless we can get things we don't have?
Don't be ridiculous.
So as touched on before.
You have dreamt up an imaginary scenario where you thought a minister for agriculture had more details on the minister for trade.
A minister you have freely admitted has already lied about the trade deal I the commons.
You want to back that horse?
No, I'm saying that a minister knows more about the situation than you do, due to their proximity to the deal.
And a deal with Australia *might* have something to do with agriculture. Maybe
Yes, I'm sure Eustice has lied about many things. As have all politicians.
I'm starting from the fairly uncontroversial position that politicians are known to tell lies (Liz Truss is also a politician, in case you hadn't noticed), but also that politicians know more about the inner workings of *their jobs* than Joe Public.
They will know more about individual discussion what's originally tabled...but as I say again. The conclusion( which is what we are dealing with...no. they dont)
They have the same data from the same reports as those made available to the public. They jave the same signed document as the public can see and assess.
It is the criticism of the signed document and trade liberalisation we are dealing with.
So no on this particular discussion she is NOT more informed
"Right. Sure. You know the starting position of negotiations. Have access to the raw data, not just the documents the government choose to produce (see: politicians lie sometimes). That makes a lot of sense. Oh wait | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said!
To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do.
The discussion s about eustice words and the outcome. Of the deal.
I have put the explainer of the absurdity of tbe assertion above.
Regardless of meetings, reports. He's no more clued up on tbe result( the bit he's criticising) than Joe blogging who read it.
Any talk of secret report and assessment is just that. Until they are released.
It's not typical in FTAs that you would have time to do impact assessments after each round. Otherwise ftas would take decades. It takes 3 months just to do the impact assessment post agreement. Imagine doing it after each round of talks.
Imagine the e.u trying to do that for 27 nations.
Son until youncan provide proof. It's just a wild claim.
And ultimately it doesn't affect the stance of the criticism of the deal at its conclusion. By some one who you guys have admitted. It a proven liar
As I said, you don’t really understand the inner workings of the UK government and full remit of the Civil Service (by the way, FTAs do indeed take years rather than being rushed through, quite correct and all about due diligence as the stakes are so high)."Actually thanks to the age of technology. You can discuss these things with those working witb them There are brilliant things called freedom of information.stion requests and you can even discuss things with those that worked on the deals on twitter. Lord frost for example is some one who engages quite regularly about his time on the nip with myself and others. Ftas do not take years. On average for America they take 18 months. On average for most other nations they take about a year when dealing with bilateral agreements and not trade blocs. Again you show your misunderstanding. I think you have assumed how long the e.u takes with deals to represent the global situation. It doesn't. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said!
To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do.
The discussion s about eustice words and the outcome. Of the deal.
I have put the explainer of the absurdity of tbe assertion above.
Regardless of meetings, reports. He's no more clued up on tbe result( the bit he's criticising) than Joe blogging who read it.
Any talk of secret report and assessment is just that. Until they are released.
It's not typical in FTAs that you would have time to do impact assessments after each round. Otherwise ftas would take decades. It takes 3 months just to do the impact assessment post agreement. Imagine doing it after each round of talks.
Imagine the e.u trying to do that for 27 nations.
Son until youncan provide proof. It's just a wild claim.
And ultimately it doesn't affect the stance of the criticism of the deal at its conclusion. By some one who you guys have admitted. It a proven liar
As I said, you don’t really understand the inner workings of the UK government and full remit of the Civil Service (by the way, FTAs do indeed take years rather than being rushed through, quite correct and all about due diligence as the stakes are so high).
Actually thanks to the age of technology. You can discuss these things with those working witb them
There are brilliant things called freedom of information.stion requests and you can even discuss things with those that worked on the deals on twitter. Lord frost for example is some one who engages quite regularly about his time on the nip with myself and others.
Ftas do not take years. On average for America they take 18 months.
On average for most other nations they take about a year when dealing with bilateral agreements and not trade blocs.
Again you show your misunderstanding. I think you have assumed how long the e.u takes with deals to represent the global situation. It doesn't.
"I'm pretty sure, given what this poster has said before, that this poster has actual vocational experience in this area. But sure, whatever you like | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said!
To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do.
The discussion s about eustice words and the outcome. Of the deal.
I have put the explainer of the absurdity of tbe assertion above.
Regardless of meetings, reports. He's no more clued up on tbe result( the bit he's criticising) than Joe blogging who read it.
Any talk of secret report and assessment is just that. Until they are released.
It's not typical in FTAs that you would have time to do impact assessments after each round. Otherwise ftas would take decades. It takes 3 months just to do the impact assessment post agreement. Imagine doing it after each round of talks.
Imagine the e.u trying to do that for 27 nations.
Son until youncan provide proof. It's just a wild claim.
And ultimately it doesn't affect the stance of the criticism of the deal at its conclusion. By some one who you guys have admitted. It a proven liar
As I said, you don’t really understand the inner workings of the UK government and full remit of the Civil Service (by the way, FTAs do indeed take years rather than being rushed through, quite correct and all about due diligence as the stakes are so high).
Actually thanks to the age of technology. You can discuss these things with those working witb them
There are brilliant things called freedom of information.stion requests and you can even discuss things with those that worked on the deals on twitter. Lord frost for example is some one who engages quite regularly about his time on the nip with myself and others.
Ftas do not take years. On average for America they take 18 months.
On average for most other nations they take about a year when dealing with bilateral agreements and not trade blocs.
Again you show your misunderstanding. I think you have assumed how long the e.u takes with deals to represent the global situation. It doesn't.
"Oh dear! So on another thread you accused me of just googling. Your America 18mths is exactly that! You are increasingly demonstrating your naivety when it comes to UK govt. Just one example...FOIs. You understand exemptions right? Here are a few examples of FTA negotiations... “Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP): the CPTPP is a trade agreement between 11 countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The UK applied to join in February 2021. Negotiations started in September 2021. US: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and the US. Negotiations started in May 2020. An agreement is not expected soon. India: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and India. Negotiations started on 17 January 2022. The Government had hoped that these negotiations would be completed by October 2022 but this deadline has been missed.” Let’s see these hit an 18mth timeline (which was for USA anyway). | |||
" There are brilliant things called freedom of information.stion requests and you can even discuss things with those that worked on the deals on twitter. Lord frost for example is some one who engages quite regularly about his time on the nip with myself and others. " Did you ask him why he disowned his own deal 5 minutes after signing it, or if he was ashamed of the peerage he got for negotiating it? | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said!
To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do.
The discussion s about eustice words and the outcome. Of the deal.
I have put the explainer of the absurdity of tbe assertion above.
Regardless of meetings, reports. He's no more clued up on tbe result( the bit he's criticising) than Joe blogging who read it.
Any talk of secret report and assessment is just that. Until they are released.
It's not typical in FTAs that you would have time to do impact assessments after each round. Otherwise ftas would take decades. It takes 3 months just to do the impact assessment post agreement. Imagine doing it after each round of talks.
Imagine the e.u trying to do that for 27 nations.
Son until youncan provide proof. It's just a wild claim.
And ultimately it doesn't affect the stance of the criticism of the deal at its conclusion. By some one who you guys have admitted. It a proven liar
As I said, you don’t really understand the inner workings of the UK government and full remit of the Civil Service (by the way, FTAs do indeed take years rather than being rushed through, quite correct and all about due diligence as the stakes are so high).
Actually thanks to the age of technology. You can discuss these things with those working witb them
There are brilliant things called freedom of information.stion requests and you can even discuss things with those that worked on the deals on twitter. Lord frost for example is some one who engages quite regularly about his time on the nip with myself and others.
Ftas do not take years. On average for America they take 18 months.
On average for most other nations they take about a year when dealing with bilateral agreements and not trade blocs.
Again you show your misunderstanding. I think you have assumed how long the e.u takes with deals to represent the global situation. It doesn't.
Oh dear! So on another thread you accused me of just googling. Your America 18mths is exactly that!
You are increasingly demonstrating your naivety when it comes to UK govt. Just one example...FOIs. You understand exemptions right?
Here are a few examples of FTA negotiations...
“Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP): the CPTPP is a trade agreement between 11 countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The UK applied to join in February 2021. Negotiations started in September 2021.
US: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and the US. Negotiations started in May 2020. An agreement is not expected soon.
India: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and India. Negotiations started on 17 January 2022. The Government had hoped that these negotiations would be completed by October 2022 but this deadline has been missed.”
Let’s see these hit an 18mth timeline (which was for USA anyway)."The American FTAs take on average 18 months...this is just a simple fact. Not something I have just gogoled but I've known for about 4 years based on the breakdown that I know you just looked at. You are claiming so.ething exists and saying the government won't produce it. The department has to respond and tell you the data exists . They can refuse to release the data. But again yourr foi request would prove that there were other impact assessments.try it. Cptpp isn't a bilateral trade agreement. Its a multilateral agreement. We will likely have acceded within 18 months regardless. So we'll under years even though it's not bi lateral. On the India trade deal. Still another few months yet. India even wanted us to enact some of the agreement early. No. No agreement with the usa. Talks stopped with Biden. Who stopped all fta talks with every country. But some agreements with individual states to reduce barriers to trade on certain items. | |||
" There are brilliant things called freedom of information.stion requests and you can even discuss things with those that worked on the deals on twitter. Lord frost for example is some one who engages quite regularly about his time on the nip with myself and others. Did you ask him why he disowned his own deal 5 minutes after signing it, or if he was ashamed of the peerage he got for negotiating it? " We don't believe in consistency anymore. Like we don't believe in experts. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said!
To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do.
The discussion s about eustice words and the outcome. Of the deal.
I have put the explainer of the absurdity of tbe assertion above.
Regardless of meetings, reports. He's no more clued up on tbe result( the bit he's criticising) than Joe blogging who read it.
Any talk of secret report and assessment is just that. Until they are released.
It's not typical in FTAs that you would have time to do impact assessments after each round. Otherwise ftas would take decades. It takes 3 months just to do the impact assessment post agreement. Imagine doing it after each round of talks.
Imagine the e.u trying to do that for 27 nations.
Son until youncan provide proof. It's just a wild claim.
And ultimately it doesn't affect the stance of the criticism of the deal at its conclusion. By some one who you guys have admitted. It a proven liar
As I said, you don’t really understand the inner workings of the UK government and full remit of the Civil Service (by the way, FTAs do indeed take years rather than being rushed through, quite correct and all about due diligence as the stakes are so high).
Actually thanks to the age of technology. You can discuss these things with those working witb them
There are brilliant things called freedom of information.stion requests and you can even discuss things with those that worked on the deals on twitter. Lord frost for example is some one who engages quite regularly about his time on the nip with myself and others.
Ftas do not take years. On average for America they take 18 months.
On average for most other nations they take about a year when dealing with bilateral agreements and not trade blocs.
Again you show your misunderstanding. I think you have assumed how long the e.u takes with deals to represent the global situation. It doesn't.
Oh dear! So on another thread you accused me of just googling. Your America 18mths is exactly that!
You are increasingly demonstrating your naivety when it comes to UK govt. Just one example...FOIs. You understand exemptions right?
Here are a few examples of FTA negotiations...
“Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP): the CPTPP is a trade agreement between 11 countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The UK applied to join in February 2021. Negotiations started in September 2021.
US: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and the US. Negotiations started in May 2020. An agreement is not expected soon.
India: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and India. Negotiations started on 17 January 2022. The Government had hoped that these negotiations would be completed by October 2022 but this deadline has been missed.”
Let’s see these hit an 18mth timeline (which was for USA anyway).
The American FTAs take on average 18 months...this is just a simple fact. Not something I have just gogoled but I've known for about 4 years based on the breakdown that I know you just looked at.
You are claiming so.ething exists and saying the government won't produce it.
The department has to respond and tell you the data exists . They can refuse to release the data. But again yourr foi request would prove that there were other impact assessments.try it.
Cptpp isn't a bilateral trade agreement. Its a multilateral agreement. We will likely have acceded within 18 months regardless. So we'll under years even though it's not bi lateral.
On the India trade deal. Still another few months yet. India even wanted us to enact some of the agreement early.
No. No agreement with the usa. Talks stopped with Biden. Who stopped all fta talks with every country. But some agreements with individual states to reduce barriers to trade on certain items.
"So would you agree that the US has an advantage with its fta’s due to its size and the dollar which mean that comparing the time it takes for them to agree one is not comparable with the time it takes for the UK to agree one? Unless you are Dizzy Lizzy who thought that getting any deal was better than the right deal, something Frosty could be accused of too | |||
" There are brilliant things called freedom of information.stion requests and you can even discuss things with those that worked on the deals on twitter. Lord frost for example is some one who engages quite regularly about his time on the nip with myself and others. Did you ask him why he disowned his own deal 5 minutes after signing it, or if he was ashamed of the peerage he got for negotiating it? " He hasn't disowned it. He has said its not working. Which it isn't. There is trade divergence and the nip can be removed if trade divergence occurs. So, something the e.u agreed could lead to a renegotiation and abandonment is occurring. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said!
To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do.
The discussion s about eustice words and the outcome. Of the deal.
I have put the explainer of the absurdity of tbe assertion above.
Regardless of meetings, reports. He's no more clued up on tbe result( the bit he's criticising) than Joe blogging who read it.
Any talk of secret report and assessment is just that. Until they are released.
It's not typical in FTAs that you would have time to do impact assessments after each round. Otherwise ftas would take decades. It takes 3 months just to do the impact assessment post agreement. Imagine doing it after each round of talks.
Imagine the e.u trying to do that for 27 nations.
Son until youncan provide proof. It's just a wild claim.
And ultimately it doesn't affect the stance of the criticism of the deal at its conclusion. By some one who you guys have admitted. It a proven liar
As I said, you don’t really understand the inner workings of the UK government and full remit of the Civil Service (by the way, FTAs do indeed take years rather than being rushed through, quite correct and all about due diligence as the stakes are so high).
Actually thanks to the age of technology. You can discuss these things with those working witb them
There are brilliant things called freedom of information.stion requests and you can even discuss things with those that worked on the deals on twitter. Lord frost for example is some one who engages quite regularly about his time on the nip with myself and others.
Ftas do not take years. On average for America they take 18 months.
On average for most other nations they take about a year when dealing with bilateral agreements and not trade blocs.
Again you show your misunderstanding. I think you have assumed how long the e.u takes with deals to represent the global situation. It doesn't.
Oh dear! So on another thread you accused me of just googling. Your America 18mths is exactly that!
You are increasingly demonstrating your naivety when it comes to UK govt. Just one example...FOIs. You understand exemptions right?
Here are a few examples of FTA negotiations...
“Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP): the CPTPP is a trade agreement between 11 countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The UK applied to join in February 2021. Negotiations started in September 2021.
US: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and the US. Negotiations started in May 2020. An agreement is not expected soon.
India: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and India. Negotiations started on 17 January 2022. The Government had hoped that these negotiations would be completed by October 2022 but this deadline has been missed.”
Let’s see these hit an 18mth timeline (which was for USA anyway).
The American FTAs take on average 18 months...this is just a simple fact. Not something I have just gogoled but I've known for about 4 years based on the breakdown that I know you just looked at.
You are claiming so.ething exists and saying the government won't produce it.
The department has to respond and tell you the data exists . They can refuse to release the data. But again yourr foi request would prove that there were other impact assessments.try it.
Cptpp isn't a bilateral trade agreement. Its a multilateral agreement. We will likely have acceded within 18 months regardless. So we'll under years even though it's not bi lateral.
On the India trade deal. Still another few months yet. India even wanted us to enact some of the agreement early.
No. No agreement with the usa. Talks stopped with Biden. Who stopped all fta talks with every country. But some agreements with individual states to reduce barriers to trade on certain items.
So would you agree that the US has an advantage with its fta’s due to its size and the dollar which mean that comparing the time it takes for them to agree one is not comparable with the time it takes for the UK to agree one? Unless you are Dizzy Lizzy who thought that getting any deal was better than the right deal, something Frosty could be accused of too "Nope. No 1 said that. The usa has stopped negotiations with every country. Size has nothing to do with it. The comparison is the length of time is takes for bilateral agreements to occurr. You can do this analysis for multiple countries for bilateral agreements. Feel free to look them up. Most take 12-18 months. | |||
| |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said!
To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do.
The discussion s about eustice words and the outcome. Of the deal.
I have put the explainer of the absurdity of tbe assertion above.
Regardless of meetings, reports. He's no more clued up on tbe result( the bit he's criticising) than Joe blogging who read it.
Any talk of secret report and assessment is just that. Until they are released.
It's not typical in FTAs that you would have time to do impact assessments after each round. Otherwise ftas would take decades. It takes 3 months just to do the impact assessment post agreement. Imagine doing it after each round of talks.
Imagine the e.u trying to do that for 27 nations.
Son until youncan provide proof. It's just a wild claim.
And ultimately it doesn't affect the stance of the criticism of the deal at its conclusion. By some one who you guys have admitted. It a proven liar
As I said, you don’t really understand the inner workings of the UK government and full remit of the Civil Service (by the way, FTAs do indeed take years rather than being rushed through, quite correct and all about due diligence as the stakes are so high).
Actually thanks to the age of technology. You can discuss these things with those working witb them
There are brilliant things called freedom of information.stion requests and you can even discuss things with those that worked on the deals on twitter. Lord frost for example is some one who engages quite regularly about his time on the nip with myself and others.
Ftas do not take years. On average for America they take 18 months.
On average for most other nations they take about a year when dealing with bilateral agreements and not trade blocs.
Again you show your misunderstanding. I think you have assumed how long the e.u takes with deals to represent the global situation. It doesn't.
Oh dear! So on another thread you accused me of just googling. Your America 18mths is exactly that!
You are increasingly demonstrating your naivety when it comes to UK govt. Just one example...FOIs. You understand exemptions right?
Here are a few examples of FTA negotiations...
“Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP): the CPTPP is a trade agreement between 11 countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The UK applied to join in February 2021. Negotiations started in September 2021.
US: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and the US. Negotiations started in May 2020. An agreement is not expected soon.
India: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and India. Negotiations started on 17 January 2022. The Government had hoped that these negotiations would be completed by October 2022 but this deadline has been missed.”
Let’s see these hit an 18mth timeline (which was for USA anyway).
The American FTAs take on average 18 months...this is just a simple fact. Not something I have just gogoled but I've known for about 4 years based on the breakdown that I know you just looked at.
You are claiming so.ething exists and saying the government won't produce it.
The department has to respond and tell you the data exists . They can refuse to release the data. But again yourr foi request would prove that there were other impact assessments.try it.
Cptpp isn't a bilateral trade agreement. Its a multilateral agreement. We will likely have acceded within 18 months regardless. So we'll under years even though it's not bi lateral.
On the India trade deal. Still another few months yet. India even wanted us to enact some of the agreement early.
No. No agreement with the usa. Talks stopped with Biden. Who stopped all fta talks with every country. But some agreements with individual states to reduce barriers to trade on certain items.
"Re: FOI you are right in principle but wrong in practice. But you believe whatever you want to believe. I don’t need to try it. As I said, I am confident I know more about the workings of senior level govt than you do. I might be wrong of course but based on your posts to date, I doubt it! | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said!
To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do.
The discussion s about eustice words and the outcome. Of the deal.
I have put the explainer of the absurdity of tbe assertion above.
Regardless of meetings, reports. He's no more clued up on tbe result( the bit he's criticising) than Joe blogging who read it.
Any talk of secret report and assessment is just that. Until they are released.
It's not typical in FTAs that you would have time to do impact assessments after each round. Otherwise ftas would take decades. It takes 3 months just to do the impact assessment post agreement. Imagine doing it after each round of talks.
Imagine the e.u trying to do that for 27 nations.
Son until youncan provide proof. It's just a wild claim.
And ultimately it doesn't affect the stance of the criticism of the deal at its conclusion. By some one who you guys have admitted. It a proven liar
As I said, you don’t really understand the inner workings of the UK government and full remit of the Civil Service (by the way, FTAs do indeed take years rather than being rushed through, quite correct and all about due diligence as the stakes are so high).
Actually thanks to the age of technology. You can discuss these things with those working witb them
There are brilliant things called freedom of information.stion requests and you can even discuss things with those that worked on the deals on twitter. Lord frost for example is some one who engages quite regularly about his time on the nip with myself and others.
Ftas do not take years. On average for America they take 18 months.
On average for most other nations they take about a year when dealing with bilateral agreements and not trade blocs.
Again you show your misunderstanding. I think you have assumed how long the e.u takes with deals to represent the global situation. It doesn't.
Oh dear! So on another thread you accused me of just googling. Your America 18mths is exactly that!
You are increasingly demonstrating your naivety when it comes to UK govt. Just one example...FOIs. You understand exemptions right?
Here are a few examples of FTA negotiations...
“Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP): the CPTPP is a trade agreement between 11 countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The UK applied to join in February 2021. Negotiations started in September 2021.
US: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and the US. Negotiations started in May 2020. An agreement is not expected soon.
India: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and India. Negotiations started on 17 January 2022. The Government had hoped that these negotiations would be completed by October 2022 but this deadline has been missed.”
Let’s see these hit an 18mth timeline (which was for USA anyway).
The American FTAs take on average 18 months...this is just a simple fact. Not something I have just gogoled but I've known for about 4 years based on the breakdown that I know you just looked at.
You are claiming so.ething exists and saying the government won't produce it.
The department has to respond and tell you the data exists . They can refuse to release the data. But again yourr foi request would prove that there were other impact assessments.try it.
Cptpp isn't a bilateral trade agreement. Its a multilateral agreement. We will likely have acceded within 18 months regardless. So we'll under years even though it's not bi lateral.
On the India trade deal. Still another few months yet. India even wanted us to enact some of the agreement early.
No. No agreement with the usa. Talks stopped with Biden. Who stopped all fta talks with every country. But some agreements with individual states to reduce barriers to trade on certain items.
Re: FOI you are right in principle but wrong in practice. But you believe whatever you want to believe.
I don’t need to try it. As I said, I am confident I know more about the workings of senior level govt than you do. I might be wrong of course but based on your posts to date, I doubt it!"I send off plenty. As I like to challenge my government and see data for myself. I know how it works. I would say based on our other discussions. I dont think you are sadly. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said!
To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do.
The discussion s about eustice words and the outcome. Of the deal.
I have put the explainer of the absurdity of tbe assertion above.
Regardless of meetings, reports. He's no more clued up on tbe result( the bit he's criticising) than Joe blogging who read it.
Any talk of secret report and assessment is just that. Until they are released.
It's not typical in FTAs that you would have time to do impact assessments after each round. Otherwise ftas would take decades. It takes 3 months just to do the impact assessment post agreement. Imagine doing it after each round of talks.
Imagine the e.u trying to do that for 27 nations.
Son until youncan provide proof. It's just a wild claim.
And ultimately it doesn't affect the stance of the criticism of the deal at its conclusion. By some one who you guys have admitted. It a proven liar
As I said, you don’t really understand the inner workings of the UK government and full remit of the Civil Service (by the way, FTAs do indeed take years rather than being rushed through, quite correct and all about due diligence as the stakes are so high).
Actually thanks to the age of technology. You can discuss these things with those working witb them
There are brilliant things called freedom of information.stion requests and you can even discuss things with those that worked on the deals on twitter. Lord frost for example is some one who engages quite regularly about his time on the nip with myself and others.
Ftas do not take years. On average for America they take 18 months.
On average for most other nations they take about a year when dealing with bilateral agreements and not trade blocs.
Again you show your misunderstanding. I think you have assumed how long the e.u takes with deals to represent the global situation. It doesn't.
Oh dear! So on another thread you accused me of just googling. Your America 18mths is exactly that!
You are increasingly demonstrating your naivety when it comes to UK govt. Just one example...FOIs. You understand exemptions right?
Here are a few examples of FTA negotiations...
“Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP): the CPTPP is a trade agreement between 11 countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The UK applied to join in February 2021. Negotiations started in September 2021.
US: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and the US. Negotiations started in May 2020. An agreement is not expected soon.
India: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and India. Negotiations started on 17 January 2022. The Government had hoped that these negotiations would be completed by October 2022 but this deadline has been missed.”
Let’s see these hit an 18mth timeline (which was for USA anyway).
The American FTAs take on average 18 months...this is just a simple fact. Not something I have just gogoled but I've known for about 4 years based on the breakdown that I know you just looked at.
You are claiming so.ething exists and saying the government won't produce it.
The department has to respond and tell you the data exists . They can refuse to release the data. But again yourr foi request would prove that there were other impact assessments.try it.
Cptpp isn't a bilateral trade agreement. Its a multilateral agreement. We will likely have acceded within 18 months regardless. So we'll under years even though it's not bi lateral.
On the India trade deal. Still another few months yet. India even wanted us to enact some of the agreement early.
No. No agreement with the usa. Talks stopped with Biden. Who stopped all fta talks with every country. But some agreements with individual states to reduce barriers to trade on certain items.
Re: FOI you are right in principle but wrong in practice. But you believe whatever you want to believe.
I don’t need to try it. As I said, I am confident I know more about the workings of senior level govt than you do. I might be wrong of course but based on your posts to date, I doubt it!
I send off plenty. As I like to challenge my government and see data for myself. I know how it works.
I would say based on our other discussions. I dont think you are sadly.
"Oh jeez this is hard work. You send in FOI requests. Bully for you. I am talking about what happens on the other side. If you don’t get that then once again very naive and clearly you have no idea what really happens “behind the scenes”. You’d be wrong on your assumptions about me but I don’t actually care what you think. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said!
To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do.
The discussion s about eustice words and the outcome. Of the deal.
I have put the explainer of the absurdity of tbe assertion above.
Regardless of meetings, reports. He's no more clued up on tbe result( the bit he's criticising) than Joe blogging who read it.
Any talk of secret report and assessment is just that. Until they are released.
It's not typical in FTAs that you would have time to do impact assessments after each round. Otherwise ftas would take decades. It takes 3 months just to do the impact assessment post agreement. Imagine doing it after each round of talks.
Imagine the e.u trying to do that for 27 nations.
Son until youncan provide proof. It's just a wild claim.
And ultimately it doesn't affect the stance of the criticism of the deal at its conclusion. By some one who you guys have admitted. It a proven liar
As I said, you don’t really understand the inner workings of the UK government and full remit of the Civil Service (by the way, FTAs do indeed take years rather than being rushed through, quite correct and all about due diligence as the stakes are so high).
Actually thanks to the age of technology. You can discuss these things with those working witb them
There are brilliant things called freedom of information.stion requests and you can even discuss things with those that worked on the deals on twitter. Lord frost for example is some one who engages quite regularly about his time on the nip with myself and others.
Ftas do not take years. On average for America they take 18 months.
On average for most other nations they take about a year when dealing with bilateral agreements and not trade blocs.
Again you show your misunderstanding. I think you have assumed how long the e.u takes with deals to represent the global situation. It doesn't.
Oh dear! So on another thread you accused me of just googling. Your America 18mths is exactly that!
You are increasingly demonstrating your naivety when it comes to UK govt. Just one example...FOIs. You understand exemptions right?
Here are a few examples of FTA negotiations...
“Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP): the CPTPP is a trade agreement between 11 countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The UK applied to join in February 2021. Negotiations started in September 2021.
US: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and the US. Negotiations started in May 2020. An agreement is not expected soon.
India: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and India. Negotiations started on 17 January 2022. The Government had hoped that these negotiations would be completed by October 2022 but this deadline has been missed.”
Let’s see these hit an 18mth timeline (which was for USA anyway).
The American FTAs take on average 18 months...this is just a simple fact. Not something I have just gogoled but I've known for about 4 years based on the breakdown that I know you just looked at.
You are claiming so.ething exists and saying the government won't produce it.
The department has to respond and tell you the data exists . They can refuse to release the data. But again yourr foi request would prove that there were other impact assessments.try it.
Cptpp isn't a bilateral trade agreement. Its a multilateral agreement. We will likely have acceded within 18 months regardless. So we'll under years even though it's not bi lateral.
On the India trade deal. Still another few months yet. India even wanted us to enact some of the agreement early.
No. No agreement with the usa. Talks stopped with Biden. Who stopped all fta talks with every country. But some agreements with individual states to reduce barriers to trade on certain items.
Re: FOI you are right in principle but wrong in practice. But you believe whatever you want to believe.
I don’t need to try it. As I said, I am confident I know more about the workings of senior level govt than you do. I might be wrong of course but based on your posts to date, I doubt it!
I send off plenty. As I like to challenge my government and see data for myself. I know how it works.
I would say based on our other discussions. I dont think you are sadly.
Oh jeez this is hard work. You send in FOI requests. Bully for you. I am talking about what happens on the other side. If you don’t get that then once again very naive and clearly you have no idea what really happens “behind the scenes”.
You’d be wrong on your assumptions about me but I don’t actually care what you think. "Behind the scenes. Oh ok. The deep conspiracy to hide things. As I said. If the data is there they have 2 options. Provide the data. Or admit having the data but not supply it due to sensitivity. Either way you find out its there. Don't know why you think they would lock away that data. Or that labour and other mps wouldn't demand its release. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said!
To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do.
The discussion s about eustice words and the outcome. Of the deal.
I have put the explainer of the absurdity of tbe assertion above.
Regardless of meetings, reports. He's no more clued up on tbe result( the bit he's criticising) than Joe blogging who read it.
Any talk of secret report and assessment is just that. Until they are released.
It's not typical in FTAs that you would have time to do impact assessments after each round. Otherwise ftas would take decades. It takes 3 months just to do the impact assessment post agreement. Imagine doing it after each round of talks.
Imagine the e.u trying to do that for 27 nations.
Son until youncan provide proof. It's just a wild claim.
And ultimately it doesn't affect the stance of the criticism of the deal at its conclusion. By some one who you guys have admitted. It a proven liar
As I said, you don’t really understand the inner workings of the UK government and full remit of the Civil Service (by the way, FTAs do indeed take years rather than being rushed through, quite correct and all about due diligence as the stakes are so high).
Actually thanks to the age of technology. You can discuss these things with those working witb them
There are brilliant things called freedom of information.stion requests and you can even discuss things with those that worked on the deals on twitter. Lord frost for example is some one who engages quite regularly about his time on the nip with myself and others.
Ftas do not take years. On average for America they take 18 months.
On average for most other nations they take about a year when dealing with bilateral agreements and not trade blocs.
Again you show your misunderstanding. I think you have assumed how long the e.u takes with deals to represent the global situation. It doesn't.
Oh dear! So on another thread you accused me of just googling. Your America 18mths is exactly that!
You are increasingly demonstrating your naivety when it comes to UK govt. Just one example...FOIs. You understand exemptions right?
Here are a few examples of FTA negotiations...
“Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP): the CPTPP is a trade agreement between 11 countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The UK applied to join in February 2021. Negotiations started in September 2021.
US: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and the US. Negotiations started in May 2020. An agreement is not expected soon.
India: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and India. Negotiations started on 17 January 2022. The Government had hoped that these negotiations would be completed by October 2022 but this deadline has been missed.”
Let’s see these hit an 18mth timeline (which was for USA anyway).
The American FTAs take on average 18 months...this is just a simple fact. Not something I have just gogoled but I've known for about 4 years based on the breakdown that I know you just looked at.
You are claiming so.ething exists and saying the government won't produce it.
The department has to respond and tell you the data exists . They can refuse to release the data. But again yourr foi request would prove that there were other impact assessments.try it.
Cptpp isn't a bilateral trade agreement. Its a multilateral agreement. We will likely have acceded within 18 months regardless. So we'll under years even though it's not bi lateral.
On the India trade deal. Still another few months yet. India even wanted us to enact some of the agreement early.
No. No agreement with the usa. Talks stopped with Biden. Who stopped all fta talks with every country. But some agreements with individual states to reduce barriers to trade on certain items.
Re: FOI you are right in principle but wrong in practice. But you believe whatever you want to believe.
I don’t need to try it. As I said, I am confident I know more about the workings of senior level govt than you do. I might be wrong of course but based on your posts to date, I doubt it!
I send off plenty. As I like to challenge my government and see data for myself. I know how it works.
I would say based on our other discussions. I dont think you are sadly.
Oh jeez this is hard work. You send in FOI requests. Bully for you. I am talking about what happens on the other side. If you don’t get that then once again very naive and clearly you have no idea what really happens “behind the scenes”.
You’d be wrong on your assumptions about me but I don’t actually care what you think.
Behind the scenes.
Oh ok. The deep conspiracy to hide things.
As I said. If the data is there they have 2 options. Provide the data.
Or admit having the data but not supply it due to sensitivity. Either way you find out its there.
Don't know why you think they would lock away that data. Or that labour and other mps wouldn't demand its release.
"You’re wrong but that’s ok. Last time I will say this (already have above) you are correct in principle but not in practice. There are are all manner of ways to avoid disclosing to FOI etc. But hey ho! You clearly believe you know better. You don’t but that’s ok! Enjoy your certainty in life Morley...! | |||
"Reading this there seem to be two questions being conflated. Is the FTA good? We'd need to agree what good means. Once agreed we probably could use public domain documents to agree of it is good. Could the FTA have been negotiated to get a better outcome? You'd need to have been there to know this. " I have come to a similar conclusion regarding 2 questions being muddled up. I also agree that to judge the FTA good or not depends on your definition of good as it could be good for the customers or good for farmers or good for the economy or all of the above. From what I leant on a previous thread its better than what I had been led to believe reading these forums so that's good from my perspective. The other part about could it have had a better outcome I believe was not what debate was about, initially at least. For the minister to know this would possibly needed inside information about what Australia were really able to accept. Their real bottom line in other words. I'm not sure he has claimed this is the case but maybe he will. On a slightly different note, it's odd that although we all know politicians ability to lie, when they say something that supports our point of view, they become very knowledgeable and credible ( for that point in time) | |||
| |||
"Liz Truss would cancel meetings on UK-Australia trade deal if ‘she couldn’t put it on Instagram’. And you wonder how we ended up with a deal George Eustice describes as giving away "far too much for far too little in return”." "Cancel the Canberra meeting room. Put her on a ferry with a view, mate, she'll give us anything we want!" | |||
"Why would China shut its market to Australian meat? Austrian meat can't all be exported here. Only certain abattoirs and farms that have been green listed can. There's also a 10 year quote phasing. We could export our more expensive meat to the e.u And they would import their cheaper meat here. And the uk meat industry survived. Sort of undermines the argument really doesn't it , that cheap meat will destroy the uk farmers industry Why would they not limit or ban Australian meat as a punishment or just naturally due to economics? Geopolitics is a thing. How naive to think otherwise. What they do send will displace what is produced here as British exports to the EU are restricted due to the export regulations. Do the Australians want our expensive meat on the other side of the world compared to their high volume, low cost Australian meat? You think that ten years is a long time for a persistent set of circumstances? As per the OP, who do we believe? Not any Ministers, even if they were involved in the negotiations and have better access to information and analysis than you? Not any "remainers". Not the Government analysis that that "it would raise total UK exports by 0.4 per cent, imports by 0.4 per cent and the level of GDP by only 0.1 per cent over 15 years"? Not farmers? Not the Economist or FT? You think the UK Australia Trade deal is positive, having read it yourself as you don't believe "remainer" propaganda? Interested to find out what your "unbiased" conclusion of benefits is compared to those of actual experts... Why would you ban Australian meat? I am not even sure you can under GATT rules. What punishment do you think aussies deserve? And what for? It won't replace the domestic market. Our meat is already re expensive than e.u meat by carcass kg. This data is available on adhb. It would replace the cheaper Irish Dutch and Polish meat. An analogy on uk products vs e.u/Australia Aldi doesn't take waitrose customers. They take asda and testosterone customers. What do you believe George eustices role was in negotiations. Again your logic fails, because if you believe ministers in negotiations. He was not the minister in charge of them. That was liz truss. So your own logic is saying you should believe liz truss over him. You might want to think that stance through. Yes the deal is good infact our exports tonaustralia are expected to increase at a far higher rate and the aussies exports to us we are net beneficiaries by about 3bn per annum in extra export trade. And those only from the static model. " I think that if you are not aware of geopolitical tension in Western and Australian relationships with China and the situation around Taiwan then your confusion isn't a suprise. However, you're no fool, so it must be feigned. China has imposed sanctions on other Australian products. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australia-pm-says-china-should-lift-trade-sanctions-welcomes-talks-2022-06-14/ I said nothing about Australians "deserving" any punishment. Australia has, to date, exported high value cuts to the UK. It's likely that will be what they grow if local markets remain open to them. This also justifies the cost of transporting across half the planet although probably not the carbon footprint. I have noticed that you have avoided the direct question in the OP about who we should believe. I provided a list of actual experts and there seem to be various Brexit supporters with differing opinions. However, from your responses in this thread, it seems that only you should be trusted. It may also be Liz Truss who you think that we should believe yet the Government's own calculation shows a negligible benefit. You haven't given a straight answer though. Overall your responses in this thread and others seem to reflect a need to prove your deep knowledge by expounding complicated explanations for concepts that you could simplify. Although, to be fair, you seem to be the only Brexit supporter who still turns up... | |||
| |||
"Brexit has been a disaster for this country and will continue to be. A large majority did not have a clue what they were really voting for. Name me one benefit of brexit. We still don't have control of our borders. We leave the EU but sign a deal with Australia. Madness. Rees mogg minister for brexit opportunities. He's now left that post and it hasn't been filled. Says it all. All those people being interviewed pre brexit all repeating the same dire comment "we want our country back". That went well then. Ten years of austerity which didn't work, two years of pandemic and now more austerity and the longest recession in history. Not good at all. " It has probably worked very well for a tiny minority who backed Brexit. Disaster capitalists. Hedge Fund managers who shorted the £ like Odey. Putin who has wrapped the EU and UK up in a huge pointless and very costly tine-consuming exercise. Brexit has resulted in a PERMANENT 4% reduction in GDP for UK. In the words of that great sage of his times Johnnie Rotten “Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?” | |||
| |||
"Why would China shut its market to Australian meat? Austrian meat can't all be exported here. Only certain abattoirs and farms that have been green listed can. There's also a 10 year quote phasing. We could export our more expensive meat to the e.u And they would import their cheaper meat here. And the uk meat industry survived. Sort of undermines the argument really doesn't it , that cheap meat will destroy the uk farmers industry Why would they not limit or ban Australian meat as a punishment or just naturally due to economics? Geopolitics is a thing. How naive to think otherwise. What they do send will displace what is produced here as British exports to the EU are restricted due to the export regulations. Do the Australians want our expensive meat on the other side of the world compared to their high volume, low cost Australian meat? You think that ten years is a long time for a persistent set of circumstances? As per the OP, who do we believe? Not any Ministers, even if they were involved in the negotiations and have better access to information and analysis than you? Not any "remainers". Not the Government analysis that that "it would raise total UK exports by 0.4 per cent, imports by 0.4 per cent and the level of GDP by only 0.1 per cent over 15 years"? Not farmers? Not the Economist or FT? You think the UK Australia Trade deal is positive, having read it yourself as you don't believe "remainer" propaganda? Interested to find out what your "unbiased" conclusion of benefits is compared to those of actual experts... Why would you ban Australian meat? I am not even sure you can under GATT rules. What punishment do you think aussies deserve? And what for? It won't replace the domestic market. Our meat is already re expensive than e.u meat by carcass kg. This data is available on adhb. It would replace the cheaper Irish Dutch and Polish meat. An analogy on uk products vs e.u/Australia Aldi doesn't take waitrose customers. They take asda and testosterone customers. What do you believe George eustices role was in negotiations. Again your logic fails, because if you believe ministers in negotiations. He was not the minister in charge of them. That was liz truss. So your own logic is saying you should believe liz truss over him. You might want to think that stance through. Yes the deal is good infact our exports tonaustralia are expected to increase at a far higher rate and the aussies exports to us we are net beneficiaries by about 3bn per annum in extra export trade. And those only from the static model. I think that if you are not aware of geopolitical tension in Western and Australian relationships with China and the situation around Taiwan then your confusion isn't a suprise. However, you're no fool, so it must be feigned. China has imposed sanctions on other Australian products. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australia-pm-says-china-should-lift-trade-sanctions-welcomes-talks-2022-06-14/ I said nothing about Australians "deserving" any punishment. Australia has, to date, exported high value cuts to the UK. It's likely that will be what they grow if local markets remain open to them. This also justifies the cost of transporting across half the planet although probably not the carbon footprint. I have noticed that you have avoided the direct question in the OP about who we should believe. I provided a list of actual experts and there seem to be various Brexit supporters with differing opinions. However, from your responses in this thread, it seems that only you should be trusted. It may also be Liz Truss who you think that we should believe yet the Government's own calculation shows a negligible benefit. You haven't given a straight answer though. Overall your responses in this thread and others seem to reflect a need to prove your deep knowledge by expounding complicated explanations for concepts that you could simplify. Although, to be fair, you seem to be the only Brexit supporter who still turns up..." That’s very concise Easy and seems like a fair summary of how some of us see the totality of this thread (and others!) Good work | |||
"Brexit has been a disaster for this country and will continue to be. A large majority did not have a clue what they were really voting for. Name me one benefit of brexit. We still don't have control of our borders. We leave the EU but sign a deal with Australia. Madness. Rees mogg minister for brexit opportunities. He's now left that post and it hasn't been filled. Says it all. All those people being interviewed pre brexit all repeating the same dire comment "we want our country back". That went well then. Ten years of austerity which didn't work, two years of pandemic and now more austerity and the longest recession in history. Not good at all. " Sad but so true  | |||
"Why would China shut its market to Australian meat? Austrian meat can't all be exported here. Only certain abattoirs and farms that have been green listed can. There's also a 10 year quote phasing. We could export our more expensive meat to the e.u And they would import their cheaper meat here. And the uk meat industry survived. Sort of undermines the argument really doesn't it , that cheap meat will destroy the uk farmers industry Why would they not limit or ban Australian meat as a punishment or just naturally due to economics? Geopolitics is a thing. How naive to think otherwise. What they do send will displace what is produced here as British exports to the EU are restricted due to the export regulations. Do the Australians want our expensive meat on the other side of the world compared to their high volume, low cost Australian meat? You think that ten years is a long time for a persistent set of circumstances? As per the OP, who do we believe? Not any Ministers, even if they were involved in the negotiations and have better access to information and analysis than you? Not any "remainers". Not the Government analysis that that "it would raise total UK exports by 0.4 per cent, imports by 0.4 per cent and the level of GDP by only 0.1 per cent over 15 years"? Not farmers? Not the Economist or FT? You think the UK Australia Trade deal is positive, having read it yourself as you don't believe "remainer" propaganda? Interested to find out what your "unbiased" conclusion of benefits is compared to those of actual experts... Why would you ban Australian meat? I am not even sure you can under GATT rules. What punishment do you think aussies deserve? And what for? It won't replace the domestic market. Our meat is already re expensive than e.u meat by carcass kg. This data is available on adhb. It would replace the cheaper Irish Dutch and Polish meat. An analogy on uk products vs e.u/Australia Aldi doesn't take waitrose customers. They take asda and testosterone customers. What do you believe George eustices role was in negotiations. Again your logic fails, because if you believe ministers in negotiations. He was not the minister in charge of them. That was liz truss. So your own logic is saying you should believe liz truss over him. You might want to think that stance through. Yes the deal is good infact our exports tonaustralia are expected to increase at a far higher rate and the aussies exports to us we are net beneficiaries by about 3bn per annum in extra export trade. And those only from the static model. I think that if you are not aware of geopolitical tension in Western and Australian relationships with China and the situation around Taiwan then your confusion isn't a suprise. However, you're no fool, so it must be feigned. China has imposed sanctions on other Australian products. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australia-pm-says-china-should-lift-trade-sanctions-welcomes-talks-2022-06-14/ I said nothing about Australians "deserving" any punishment. Australia has, to date, exported high value cuts to the UK. It's likely that will be what they grow if local markets remain open to them. This also justifies the cost of transporting across half the planet although probably not the carbon footprint. I have noticed that you have avoided the direct question in the OP about who we should believe. I provided a list of actual experts and there seem to be various Brexit supporters with differing opinions. However, from your responses in this thread, it seems that only you should be trusted. It may also be Liz Truss who you think that we should believe yet the Government's own calculation shows a negligible benefit. You haven't given a straight answer though. Overall your responses in this thread and others seem to reflect a need to prove your deep knowledge by expounding complicated explanations for concepts that you could simplify. Although, to be fair, you seem to be the only Brexit supporter who still turns up..." Well said | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said!
To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do.
The discussion s about eustice words and the outcome. Of the deal.
I have put the explainer of the absurdity of tbe assertion above.
Regardless of meetings, reports. He's no more clued up on tbe result( the bit he's criticising) than Joe blogging who read it.
Any talk of secret report and assessment is just that. Until they are released.
It's not typical in FTAs that you would have time to do impact assessments after each round. Otherwise ftas would take decades. It takes 3 months just to do the impact assessment post agreement. Imagine doing it after each round of talks.
Imagine the e.u trying to do that for 27 nations.
Son until youncan provide proof. It's just a wild claim.
And ultimately it doesn't affect the stance of the criticism of the deal at its conclusion. By some one who you guys have admitted. It a proven liar
As I said, you don’t really understand the inner workings of the UK government and full remit of the Civil Service (by the way, FTAs do indeed take years rather than being rushed through, quite correct and all about due diligence as the stakes are so high).
Actually thanks to the age of technology. You can discuss these things with those working witb them
There are brilliant things called freedom of information.stion requests and you can even discuss things with those that worked on the deals on twitter. Lord frost for example is some one who engages quite regularly about his time on the nip with myself and others.
Ftas do not take years. On average for America they take 18 months.
On average for most other nations they take about a year when dealing with bilateral agreements and not trade blocs.
Again you show your misunderstanding. I think you have assumed how long the e.u takes with deals to represent the global situation. It doesn't.
Oh dear! So on another thread you accused me of just googling. Your America 18mths is exactly that!
You are increasingly demonstrating your naivety when it comes to UK govt. Just one example...FOIs. You understand exemptions right?
Here are a few examples of FTA negotiations...
“Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP): the CPTPP is a trade agreement between 11 countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The UK applied to join in February 2021. Negotiations started in September 2021.
US: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and the US. Negotiations started in May 2020. An agreement is not expected soon.
India: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and India. Negotiations started on 17 January 2022. The Government had hoped that these negotiations would be completed by October 2022 but this deadline has been missed.”
Let’s see these hit an 18mth timeline (which was for USA anyway).
The American FTAs take on average 18 months...this is just a simple fact. Not something I have just gogoled but I've known for about 4 years based on the breakdown that I know you just looked at.
You are claiming so.ething exists and saying the government won't produce it.
The department has to respond and tell you the data exists . They can refuse to release the data. But again yourr foi request would prove that there were other impact assessments.try it.
Cptpp isn't a bilateral trade agreement. Its a multilateral agreement. We will likely have acceded within 18 months regardless. So we'll under years even though it's not bi lateral.
On the India trade deal. Still another few months yet. India even wanted us to enact some of the agreement early.
No. No agreement with the usa. Talks stopped with Biden. Who stopped all fta talks with every country. But some agreements with individual states to reduce barriers to trade on certain items.
Re: FOI you are right in principle but wrong in practice. But you believe whatever you want to believe.
I don’t need to try it. As I said, I am confident I know more about the workings of senior level govt than you do. I might be wrong of course but based on your posts to date, I doubt it!
I send off plenty. As I like to challenge my government and see data for myself. I know how it works.
I would say based on our other discussions. I dont think you are sadly.
Oh jeez this is hard work. You send in FOI requests. Bully for you. I am talking about what happens on the other side. If you don’t get that then once again very naive and clearly you have no idea what really happens “behind the scenes”.
You’d be wrong on your assumptions about me but I don’t actually care what you think.
Behind the scenes.
Oh ok. The deep conspiracy to hide things.
As I said. If the data is there they have 2 options. Provide the data.
Or admit having the data but not supply it due to sensitivity. Either way you find out its there.
Don't know why you think they would lock away that data. Or that labour and other mps wouldn't demand its release.
You’re wrong but that’s ok. Last time I will say this (already have above) you are correct in principle but not in practice. There are are all manner of ways to avoid disclosing to FOI etc. But hey ho! You clearly believe you know better. You don’t but that’s ok! Enjoy your certainty in life Morley...!"I shall. Sadly in our discussions on threads there have been multiple errors from that side of the debate...even to the point I'd calk them lying. I had you not knowing the difference between debt and deficit. People weren't aware that refugees could come to the uk via multiple legal schemes instead of boats. They weren't aware of how many on those boats were Albanian. I then had you quickly Googling the scheme and believing they were operating in the country of origin. Not the refugee country. I've had people down right lie and say no lng gas came from the USA in months I then provided the actual lng import landings from USA register lng vessels. I had 1 person try claiming Norway delivers LNG via boat and we couldn't store it. I then provided the data that all Norway gas comes via the submerged pipelines. I had another say we needed Germany to stor our gas. I then proved the uk has bot used German gas in the last 2 years. I've then proven gdp deflator have changed for our calculations and shown German ones have not. Shown the coi measurements. I have had you confuse the IMF and IFS organisations. The list is quite frankly endless of the amount of errors and at times down right lies being spouted on these forums. So yes. Given I do my research and go to source data, actually know the websites and studies and papers being quoted I will enjoy my certainty that I do research things more than the majority in these threads. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said!
To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do.
The discussion s about eustice words and the outcome. Of the deal.
I have put the explainer of the absurdity of tbe assertion above.
Regardless of meetings, reports. He's no more clued up on tbe result( the bit he's criticising) than Joe blogging who read it.
Any talk of secret report and assessment is just that. Until they are released.
It's not typical in FTAs that you would have time to do impact assessments after each round. Otherwise ftas would take decades. It takes 3 months just to do the impact assessment post agreement. Imagine doing it after each round of talks.
Imagine the e.u trying to do that for 27 nations.
Son until youncan provide proof. It's just a wild claim.
And ultimately it doesn't affect the stance of the criticism of the deal at its conclusion. By some one who you guys have admitted. It a proven liar
As I said, you don’t really understand the inner workings of the UK government and full remit of the Civil Service (by the way, FTAs do indeed take years rather than being rushed through, quite correct and all about due diligence as the stakes are so high).
Actually thanks to the age of technology. You can discuss these things with those working witb them
There are brilliant things called freedom of information.stion requests and you can even discuss things with those that worked on the deals on twitter. Lord frost for example is some one who engages quite regularly about his time on the nip with myself and others.
Ftas do not take years. On average for America they take 18 months.
On average for most other nations they take about a year when dealing with bilateral agreements and not trade blocs.
Again you show your misunderstanding. I think you have assumed how long the e.u takes with deals to represent the global situation. It doesn't.
Oh dear! So on another thread you accused me of just googling. Your America 18mths is exactly that!
You are increasingly demonstrating your naivety when it comes to UK govt. Just one example...FOIs. You understand exemptions right?
Here are a few examples of FTA negotiations...
“Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP): the CPTPP is a trade agreement between 11 countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The UK applied to join in February 2021. Negotiations started in September 2021.
US: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and the US. Negotiations started in May 2020. An agreement is not expected soon.
India: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and India. Negotiations started on 17 January 2022. The Government had hoped that these negotiations would be completed by October 2022 but this deadline has been missed.”
Let’s see these hit an 18mth timeline (which was for USA anyway).
The American FTAs take on average 18 months...this is just a simple fact. Not something I have just gogoled but I've known for about 4 years based on the breakdown that I know you just looked at.
You are claiming so.ething exists and saying the government won't produce it.
The department has to respond and tell you the data exists . They can refuse to release the data. But again yourr foi request would prove that there were other impact assessments.try it.
Cptpp isn't a bilateral trade agreement. Its a multilateral agreement. We will likely have acceded within 18 months regardless. So we'll under years even though it's not bi lateral.
On the India trade deal. Still another few months yet. India even wanted us to enact some of the agreement early.
No. No agreement with the usa. Talks stopped with Biden. Who stopped all fta talks with every country. But some agreements with individual states to reduce barriers to trade on certain items.
Re: FOI you are right in principle but wrong in practice. But you believe whatever you want to believe.
I don’t need to try it. As I said, I am confident I know more about the workings of senior level govt than you do. I might be wrong of course but based on your posts to date, I doubt it!
I send off plenty. As I like to challenge my government and see data for myself. I know how it works.
I would say based on our other discussions. I dont think you are sadly.
Oh jeez this is hard work. You send in FOI requests. Bully for you. I am talking about what happens on the other side. If you don’t get that then once again very naive and clearly you have no idea what really happens “behind the scenes”.
You’d be wrong on your assumptions about me but I don’t actually care what you think.
Behind the scenes.
Oh ok. The deep conspiracy to hide things.
As I said. If the data is there they have 2 options. Provide the data.
Or admit having the data but not supply it due to sensitivity. Either way you find out its there.
Don't know why you think they would lock away that data. Or that labour and other mps wouldn't demand its release.
You’re wrong but that’s ok. Last time I will say this (already have above) you are correct in principle but not in practice. There are are all manner of ways to avoid disclosing to FOI etc. But hey ho! You clearly believe you know better. You don’t but that’s ok! Enjoy your certainty in life Morley...!
I shall. Sadly in our discussions on threads there have been multiple errors from that side of the debate...even to the point I'd calk them lying.
I had you not knowing the difference between debt and deficit.
People weren't aware that refugees could come to the uk via multiple legal schemes instead of boats.
They weren't aware of how many on those boats were Albanian.
I then had you quickly Googling the scheme and believing they were operating in the country of origin. Not the refugee country.
I've had people down right lie and say no lng gas came from the USA in months I then provided the actual lng import landings from USA register lng vessels.
I had 1 person try claiming Norway delivers LNG via boat and we couldn't store it. I then provided the data that all Norway gas comes via the submerged pipelines.
I had another say we needed Germany to stor our gas. I then proved the uk has bot used German gas in the last 2 years.
I've then proven gdp deflator have changed for our calculations and shown German ones have not. Shown the coi measurements.
I have had you confuse the IMF and IFS organisations.
The list is quite frankly endless of the amount of errors and at times down right lies being spouted on these forums.
So yes. Given I do my research and go to source data, actually know the websites and studies and papers being quoted
I will enjoy my certainty that I do research things more than the majority in these threads.
"So much to unpack there! You need to work on the grammar though as you switch between “you” meaning me and “you” meaning groups of people. Several things in that list you seem to be ascribing to me when I have no idea what that discussion was. You also seem to think you had a win over historical immigration schemes when I out forward a rhetorical question. That’s ok though as I can give you a pass as nuance is hard to get across on social media. Your perceived “victories” against everyone else on here seem to really matter to you? That feels a little insecure? No need to be because I, and others, have acknowledged that there are some areas where you do seem to know your stuff. But that clearly isn’t a universal truth and it is actually a strength to admit you do not know everything. And the bottom line specifically related to this thread is that pretty much everyone, including previously hardcore brexiters, are admitting Brexit is a sh1tshow that has negatively, and likely permanently, damaged the UK and undermined our position on the World stage. It has been exacerbated by the ineptitude of the last few years of Tory govt and the likes of Truss and Kwartang. And this means the UK’s negotiating position for trade deals has been weakened! The more powerful, richer nation should ALWAYS have the upper hand in any negotiation. The UK should have walked all over Australia. We didn’t. Weak weak weak. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said!
To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do.
The discussion s about eustice words and the outcome. Of the deal.
I have put the explainer of the absurdity of tbe assertion above.
Regardless of meetings, reports. He's no more clued up on tbe result( the bit he's criticising) than Joe blogging who read it.
Any talk of secret report and assessment is just that. Until they are released.
It's not typical in FTAs that you would have time to do impact assessments after each round. Otherwise ftas would take decades. It takes 3 months just to do the impact assessment post agreement. Imagine doing it after each round of talks.
Imagine the e.u trying to do that for 27 nations.
Son until youncan provide proof. It's just a wild claim.
And ultimately it doesn't affect the stance of the criticism of the deal at its conclusion. By some one who you guys have admitted. It a proven liar
As I said, you don’t really understand the inner workings of the UK government and full remit of the Civil Service (by the way, FTAs do indeed take years rather than being rushed through, quite correct and all about due diligence as the stakes are so high).
Actually thanks to the age of technology. You can discuss these things with those working witb them
There are brilliant things called freedom of information.stion requests and you can even discuss things with those that worked on the deals on twitter. Lord frost for example is some one who engages quite regularly about his time on the nip with myself and others.
Ftas do not take years. On average for America they take 18 months.
On average for most other nations they take about a year when dealing with bilateral agreements and not trade blocs.
Again you show your misunderstanding. I think you have assumed how long the e.u takes with deals to represent the global situation. It doesn't.
Oh dear! So on another thread you accused me of just googling. Your America 18mths is exactly that!
You are increasingly demonstrating your naivety when it comes to UK govt. Just one example...FOIs. You understand exemptions right?
Here are a few examples of FTA negotiations...
“Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP): the CPTPP is a trade agreement between 11 countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The UK applied to join in February 2021. Negotiations started in September 2021.
US: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and the US. Negotiations started in May 2020. An agreement is not expected soon.
India: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and India. Negotiations started on 17 January 2022. The Government had hoped that these negotiations would be completed by October 2022 but this deadline has been missed.”
Let’s see these hit an 18mth timeline (which was for USA anyway).
The American FTAs take on average 18 months...this is just a simple fact. Not something I have just gogoled but I've known for about 4 years based on the breakdown that I know you just looked at.
You are claiming so.ething exists and saying the government won't produce it.
The department has to respond and tell you the data exists . They can refuse to release the data. But again yourr foi request would prove that there were other impact assessments.try it.
Cptpp isn't a bilateral trade agreement. Its a multilateral agreement. We will likely have acceded within 18 months regardless. So we'll under years even though it's not bi lateral.
On the India trade deal. Still another few months yet. India even wanted us to enact some of the agreement early.
No. No agreement with the usa. Talks stopped with Biden. Who stopped all fta talks with every country. But some agreements with individual states to reduce barriers to trade on certain items.
Re: FOI you are right in principle but wrong in practice. But you believe whatever you want to believe.
I don’t need to try it. As I said, I am confident I know more about the workings of senior level govt than you do. I might be wrong of course but based on your posts to date, I doubt it!
I send off plenty. As I like to challenge my government and see data for myself. I know how it works.
I would say based on our other discussions. I dont think you are sadly.
Oh jeez this is hard work. You send in FOI requests. Bully for you. I am talking about what happens on the other side. If you don’t get that then once again very naive and clearly you have no idea what really happens “behind the scenes”.
You’d be wrong on your assumptions about me but I don’t actually care what you think.
Behind the scenes.
Oh ok. The deep conspiracy to hide things.
As I said. If the data is there they have 2 options. Provide the data.
Or admit having the data but not supply it due to sensitivity. Either way you find out its there.
Don't know why you think they would lock away that data. Or that labour and other mps wouldn't demand its release.
You’re wrong but that’s ok. Last time I will say this (already have above) you are correct in principle but not in practice. There are are all manner of ways to avoid disclosing to FOI etc. But hey ho! You clearly believe you know better. You don’t but that’s ok! Enjoy your certainty in life Morley...!
I shall. Sadly in our discussions on threads there have been multiple errors from that side of the debate...even to the point I'd calk them lying.
I had you not knowing the difference between debt and deficit.
People weren't aware that refugees could come to the uk via multiple legal schemes instead of boats.
They weren't aware of how many on those boats were Albanian.
I then had you quickly Googling the scheme and believing they were operating in the country of origin. Not the refugee country.
I've had people down right lie and say no lng gas came from the USA in months I then provided the actual lng import landings from USA register lng vessels.
I had 1 person try claiming Norway delivers LNG via boat and we couldn't store it. I then provided the data that all Norway gas comes via the submerged pipelines.
I had another say we needed Germany to stor our gas. I then proved the uk has bot used German gas in the last 2 years.
I've then proven gdp deflator have changed for our calculations and shown German ones have not. Shown the coi measurements.
I have had you confuse the IMF and IFS organisations.
The list is quite frankly endless of the amount of errors and at times down right lies being spouted on these forums.
So yes. Given I do my research and go to source data, actually know the websites and studies and papers being quoted
I will enjoy my certainty that I do research things more than the majority in these threads.
So much to unpack there! You need to work on the grammar though as you switch between “you” meaning me and “you” meaning groups of people. Several things in that list you seem to be ascribing to me when I have no idea what that discussion was.
You also seem to think you had a win over historical immigration schemes when I out forward a rhetorical question. That’s ok though as I can give you a pass as nuance is hard to get across on social media.
Your perceived “victories” against everyone else on here seem to really matter to you? That feels a little insecure? No need to be because I, and others, have acknowledged that there are some areas where you do seem to know your stuff. But that clearly isn’t a universal truth and it is actually a strength to admit you do not know everything.
And the bottom line specifically related to this thread is that pretty much everyone, including previously hardcore brexiters, are admitting Brexit is a sh1tshow that has negatively, and likely permanently, damaged the UK and undermined our position on the World stage. It has been exacerbated by the ineptitude of the last few years of Tory govt and the likes of Truss and Kwartang. And this means the UK’s negotiating position for trade deals has been weakened!
The more powerful, richer nation should ALWAYS have the upper hand in any negotiation. The UK should have walked all over Australia. We didn’t. Weak weak weak. "Again..have you seen the impact assessment our exports increase significantly more than the aussies. Habe you read it. Can you tell me where you think the capitulation is? I've posted it on here. And yet. No 1 can answer? I dont perceive them as victories. I am trying to highlight to you don't just read a headline for confirmation bias. Interrogate the data. The fact so many quote things they don't comprehend, don't read, dont check. Is a sad indictment of our electorate. People go off and do quick Google searches for find a snippet again for confirmation bias. Yet dont read the full article. I highlighted the immigration one to you because again. You didn't look how the scheme worked in its entirety and assumed we went to Iran or Iraq to find these refugees. Not the refugee camps in third coutnries. Maybe instead of reply in such haste thinking you have a " gotcha " moment. Read it in full. Educate yourself and be a better debater for it. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said!
To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do.
The discussion s about eustice words and the outcome. Of the deal.
I have put the explainer of the absurdity of tbe assertion above.
Regardless of meetings, reports. He's no more clued up on tbe result( the bit he's criticising) than Joe blogging who read it.
Any talk of secret report and assessment is just that. Until they are released.
It's not typical in FTAs that you would have time to do impact assessments after each round. Otherwise ftas would take decades. It takes 3 months just to do the impact assessment post agreement. Imagine doing it after each round of talks.
Imagine the e.u trying to do that for 27 nations.
Son until youncan provide proof. It's just a wild claim.
And ultimately it doesn't affect the stance of the criticism of the deal at its conclusion. By some one who you guys have admitted. It a proven liar
As I said, you don’t really understand the inner workings of the UK government and full remit of the Civil Service (by the way, FTAs do indeed take years rather than being rushed through, quite correct and all about due diligence as the stakes are so high).
Actually thanks to the age of technology. You can discuss these things with those working witb them
There are brilliant things called freedom of information.stion requests and you can even discuss things with those that worked on the deals on twitter. Lord frost for example is some one who engages quite regularly about his time on the nip with myself and others.
Ftas do not take years. On average for America they take 18 months.
On average for most other nations they take about a year when dealing with bilateral agreements and not trade blocs.
Again you show your misunderstanding. I think you have assumed how long the e.u takes with deals to represent the global situation. It doesn't.
Oh dear! So on another thread you accused me of just googling. Your America 18mths is exactly that!
You are increasingly demonstrating your naivety when it comes to UK govt. Just one example...FOIs. You understand exemptions right?
Here are a few examples of FTA negotiations...
“Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP): the CPTPP is a trade agreement between 11 countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The UK applied to join in February 2021. Negotiations started in September 2021.
US: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and the US. Negotiations started in May 2020. An agreement is not expected soon.
India: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and India. Negotiations started on 17 January 2022. The Government had hoped that these negotiations would be completed by October 2022 but this deadline has been missed.”
Let’s see these hit an 18mth timeline (which was for USA anyway).
The American FTAs take on average 18 months...this is just a simple fact. Not something I have just gogoled but I've known for about 4 years based on the breakdown that I know you just looked at.
You are claiming so.ething exists and saying the government won't produce it.
The department has to respond and tell you the data exists . They can refuse to release the data. But again yourr foi request would prove that there were other impact assessments.try it.
Cptpp isn't a bilateral trade agreement. Its a multilateral agreement. We will likely have acceded within 18 months regardless. So we'll under years even though it's not bi lateral.
On the India trade deal. Still another few months yet. India even wanted us to enact some of the agreement early.
No. No agreement with the usa. Talks stopped with Biden. Who stopped all fta talks with every country. But some agreements with individual states to reduce barriers to trade on certain items.
Re: FOI you are right in principle but wrong in practice. But you believe whatever you want to believe.
I don’t need to try it. As I said, I am confident I know more about the workings of senior level govt than you do. I might be wrong of course but based on your posts to date, I doubt it!
I send off plenty. As I like to challenge my government and see data for myself. I know how it works.
I would say based on our other discussions. I dont think you are sadly.
Oh jeez this is hard work. You send in FOI requests. Bully for you. I am talking about what happens on the other side. If you don’t get that then once again very naive and clearly you have no idea what really happens “behind the scenes”.
You’d be wrong on your assumptions about me but I don’t actually care what you think.
Behind the scenes.
Oh ok. The deep conspiracy to hide things.
As I said. If the data is there they have 2 options. Provide the data.
Or admit having the data but not supply it due to sensitivity. Either way you find out its there.
Don't know why you think they would lock away that data. Or that labour and other mps wouldn't demand its release.
You’re wrong but that’s ok. Last time I will say this (already have above) you are correct in principle but not in practice. There are are all manner of ways to avoid disclosing to FOI etc. But hey ho! You clearly believe you know better. You don’t but that’s ok! Enjoy your certainty in life Morley...!
I shall. Sadly in our discussions on threads there have been multiple errors from that side of the debate...even to the point I'd calk them lying.
I had you not knowing the difference between debt and deficit.
People weren't aware that refugees could come to the uk via multiple legal schemes instead of boats.
They weren't aware of how many on those boats were Albanian.
I then had you quickly Googling the scheme and believing they were operating in the country of origin. Not the refugee country.
I've had people down right lie and say no lng gas came from the USA in months I then provided the actual lng import landings from USA register lng vessels.
I had 1 person try claiming Norway delivers LNG via boat and we couldn't store it. I then provided the data that all Norway gas comes via the submerged pipelines.
I had another say we needed Germany to stor our gas. I then proved the uk has bot used German gas in the last 2 years.
I've then proven gdp deflator have changed for our calculations and shown German ones have not. Shown the coi measurements.
I have had you confuse the IMF and IFS organisations.
The list is quite frankly endless of the amount of errors and at times down right lies being spouted on these forums.
So yes. Given I do my research and go to source data, actually know the websites and studies and papers being quoted
I will enjoy my certainty that I do research things more than the majority in these threads.
So much to unpack there! You need to work on the grammar though as you switch between “you” meaning me and “you” meaning groups of people. Several things in that list you seem to be ascribing to me when I have no idea what that discussion was.
You also seem to think you had a win over historical immigration schemes when I out forward a rhetorical question. That’s ok though as I can give you a pass as nuance is hard to get across on social media.
Your perceived “victories” against everyone else on here seem to really matter to you? That feels a little insecure? No need to be because I, and others, have acknowledged that there are some areas where you do seem to know your stuff. But that clearly isn’t a universal truth and it is actually a strength to admit you do not know everything.
And the bottom line specifically related to this thread is that pretty much everyone, including previously hardcore brexiters, are admitting Brexit is a sh1tshow that has negatively, and likely permanently, damaged the UK and undermined our position on the World stage. It has been exacerbated by the ineptitude of the last few years of Tory govt and the likes of Truss and Kwartang. And this means the UK’s negotiating position for trade deals has been weakened!
The more powerful, richer nation should ALWAYS have the upper hand in any negotiation. The UK should have walked all over Australia. We didn’t. Weak weak weak.
Again..have you seen the impact assessment our exports increase significantly more than the aussies.
Habe you read it. Can you tell me where you think the capitulation is?
I've posted it on here. And yet. No 1 can answer?
I dont perceive them as victories. I am trying to highlight to you don't just read a headline for confirmation bias. Interrogate the data.
The fact so many quote things they don't comprehend, don't read, dont check. Is a sad indictment of our electorate.
People go off and do quick Google searches for find a snippet again for confirmation bias. Yet dont read the full article.
I highlighted the immigration one to you because again. You didn't look how the scheme worked in its entirety and assumed we went to Iran or Iraq to find these refugees. Not the refugee camps in third coutnries.
Maybe instead of reply in such haste thinking you have a " gotcha " moment. Read it in full. Educate yourself and be a better debater for it."Hmmm “highlighted the immigration one to you because again. You didn't look how the scheme worked in its entirety and assumed we went to Iran or Iraq to find these refugees. Not the refugee camps in third coutnries.” I don’t believe I said any such thing or you’re twisting what has been said to fit your narrative? You also posted a list of historical schemes that have been superseded but implied they were all current. No worries you do you. You still came across as insecure trawling the forums pulling out all the arguments/debates you think you “won”. It’s an odd thing to need for a seemingly intelligent person? | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said!
To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do.
The discussion s about eustice words and the outcome. Of the deal.
I have put the explainer of the absurdity of tbe assertion above.
Regardless of meetings, reports. He's no more clued up on tbe result( the bit he's criticising) than Joe blogging who read it.
Any talk of secret report and assessment is just that. Until they are released.
It's not typical in FTAs that you would have time to do impact assessments after each round. Otherwise ftas would take decades. It takes 3 months just to do the impact assessment post agreement. Imagine doing it after each round of talks.
Imagine the e.u trying to do that for 27 nations.
Son until youncan provide proof. It's just a wild claim.
And ultimately it doesn't affect the stance of the criticism of the deal at its conclusion. By some one who you guys have admitted. It a proven liar
As I said, you don’t really understand the inner workings of the UK government and full remit of the Civil Service (by the way, FTAs do indeed take years rather than being rushed through, quite correct and all about due diligence as the stakes are so high).
Actually thanks to the age of technology. You can discuss these things with those working witb them
There are brilliant things called freedom of information.stion requests and you can even discuss things with those that worked on the deals on twitter. Lord frost for example is some one who engages quite regularly about his time on the nip with myself and others.
Ftas do not take years. On average for America they take 18 months.
On average for most other nations they take about a year when dealing with bilateral agreements and not trade blocs.
Again you show your misunderstanding. I think you have assumed how long the e.u takes with deals to represent the global situation. It doesn't.
Oh dear! So on another thread you accused me of just googling. Your America 18mths is exactly that!
You are increasingly demonstrating your naivety when it comes to UK govt. Just one example...FOIs. You understand exemptions right?
Here are a few examples of FTA negotiations...
“Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP): the CPTPP is a trade agreement between 11 countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The UK applied to join in February 2021. Negotiations started in September 2021.
US: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and the US. Negotiations started in May 2020. An agreement is not expected soon.
India: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and India. Negotiations started on 17 January 2022. The Government had hoped that these negotiations would be completed by October 2022 but this deadline has been missed.”
Let’s see these hit an 18mth timeline (which was for USA anyway).
The American FTAs take on average 18 months...this is just a simple fact. Not something I have just gogoled but I've known for about 4 years based on the breakdown that I know you just looked at.
You are claiming so.ething exists and saying the government won't produce it.
The department has to respond and tell you the data exists . They can refuse to release the data. But again yourr foi request would prove that there were other impact assessments.try it.
Cptpp isn't a bilateral trade agreement. Its a multilateral agreement. We will likely have acceded within 18 months regardless. So we'll under years even though it's not bi lateral.
On the India trade deal. Still another few months yet. India even wanted us to enact some of the agreement early.
No. No agreement with the usa. Talks stopped with Biden. Who stopped all fta talks with every country. But some agreements with individual states to reduce barriers to trade on certain items.
Re: FOI you are right in principle but wrong in practice. But you believe whatever you want to believe.
I don’t need to try it. As I said, I am confident I know more about the workings of senior level govt than you do. I might be wrong of course but based on your posts to date, I doubt it!
I send off plenty. As I like to challenge my government and see data for myself. I know how it works.
I would say based on our other discussions. I dont think you are sadly.
Oh jeez this is hard work. You send in FOI requests. Bully for you. I am talking about what happens on the other side. If you don’t get that then once again very naive and clearly you have no idea what really happens “behind the scenes”.
You’d be wrong on your assumptions about me but I don’t actually care what you think.
Behind the scenes.
Oh ok. The deep conspiracy to hide things.
As I said. If the data is there they have 2 options. Provide the data.
Or admit having the data but not supply it due to sensitivity. Either way you find out its there.
Don't know why you think they would lock away that data. Or that labour and other mps wouldn't demand its release.
You’re wrong but that’s ok. Last time I will say this (already have above) you are correct in principle but not in practice. There are are all manner of ways to avoid disclosing to FOI etc. But hey ho! You clearly believe you know better. You don’t but that’s ok! Enjoy your certainty in life Morley...!
I shall. Sadly in our discussions on threads there have been multiple errors from that side of the debate...even to the point I'd calk them lying.
I had you not knowing the difference between debt and deficit.
People weren't aware that refugees could come to the uk via multiple legal schemes instead of boats.
They weren't aware of how many on those boats were Albanian.
I then had you quickly Googling the scheme and believing they were operating in the country of origin. Not the refugee country.
I've had people down right lie and say no lng gas came from the USA in months I then provided the actual lng import landings from USA register lng vessels.
I had 1 person try claiming Norway delivers LNG via boat and we couldn't store it. I then provided the data that all Norway gas comes via the submerged pipelines.
I had another say we needed Germany to stor our gas. I then proved the uk has bot used German gas in the last 2 years.
I've then proven gdp deflator have changed for our calculations and shown German ones have not. Shown the coi measurements.
I have had you confuse the IMF and IFS organisations.
The list is quite frankly endless of the amount of errors and at times down right lies being spouted on these forums.
So yes. Given I do my research and go to source data, actually know the websites and studies and papers being quoted
I will enjoy my certainty that I do research things more than the majority in these threads.
So much to unpack there! You need to work on the grammar though as you switch between “you” meaning me and “you” meaning groups of people. Several things in that list you seem to be ascribing to me when I have no idea what that discussion was.
You also seem to think you had a win over historical immigration schemes when I out forward a rhetorical question. That’s ok though as I can give you a pass as nuance is hard to get across on social media.
Your perceived “victories” against everyone else on here seem to really matter to you? That feels a little insecure? No need to be because I, and others, have acknowledged that there are some areas where you do seem to know your stuff. But that clearly isn’t a universal truth and it is actually a strength to admit you do not know everything.
And the bottom line specifically related to this thread is that pretty much everyone, including previously hardcore brexiters, are admitting Brexit is a sh1tshow that has negatively, and likely permanently, damaged the UK and undermined our position on the World stage. It has been exacerbated by the ineptitude of the last few years of Tory govt and the likes of Truss and Kwartang. And this means the UK’s negotiating position for trade deals has been weakened!
The more powerful, richer nation should ALWAYS have the upper hand in any negotiation. The UK should have walked all over Australia. We didn’t. Weak weak weak.
Again..have you seen the impact assessment our exports increase significantly more than the aussies.
Habe you read it. Can you tell me where you think the capitulation is?
I've posted it on here. And yet. No 1 can answer?
I dont perceive them as victories. I am trying to highlight to you don't just read a headline for confirmation bias. Interrogate the data.
The fact so many quote things they don't comprehend, don't read, dont check. Is a sad indictment of our electorate.
People go off and do quick Google searches for find a snippet again for confirmation bias. Yet dont read the full article.
I highlighted the immigration one to you because again. You didn't look how the scheme worked in its entirety and assumed we went to Iran or Iraq to find these refugees. Not the refugee camps in third coutnries.
Maybe instead of reply in such haste thinking you have a " gotcha " moment. Read it in full. Educate yourself and be a better debater for it.
Hmmm “highlighted the immigration one to you because again. You didn't look how the scheme worked in its entirety and assumed we went to Iran or Iraq to find these refugees. Not the refugee camps in third coutnries.” I don’t believe I said any such thing or you’re twisting what has been said to fit your narrative? You also posted a list of historical schemes that have been superseded but implied they were all current. No worries you do you.
You still came across as insecure trawling the forums pulling out all the arguments/debates you think you “won”. It’s an odd thing to need for a seemingly intelligent person?"Nothing about insecure. I justnknow people are posting about things they haven't investigated and don't understand the workings of which younhave proven before. | |||
| |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said!
To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do.
The discussion s about eustice words and the outcome. Of the deal.
I have put the explainer of the absurdity of tbe assertion above.
Regardless of meetings, reports. He's no more clued up on tbe result( the bit he's criticising) than Joe blogging who read it.
Any talk of secret report and assessment is just that. Until they are released.
It's not typical in FTAs that you would have time to do impact assessments after each round. Otherwise ftas would take decades. It takes 3 months just to do the impact assessment post agreement. Imagine doing it after each round of talks.
Imagine the e.u trying to do that for 27 nations.
Son until youncan provide proof. It's just a wild claim.
And ultimately it doesn't affect the stance of the criticism of the deal at its conclusion. By some one who you guys have admitted. It a proven liar
As I said, you don’t really understand the inner workings of the UK government and full remit of the Civil Service (by the way, FTAs do indeed take years rather than being rushed through, quite correct and all about due diligence as the stakes are so high).
Actually thanks to the age of technology. You can discuss these things with those working witb them
There are brilliant things called freedom of information.stion requests and you can even discuss things with those that worked on the deals on twitter. Lord frost for example is some one who engages quite regularly about his time on the nip with myself and others.
Ftas do not take years. On average for America they take 18 months.
On average for most other nations they take about a year when dealing with bilateral agreements and not trade blocs.
Again you show your misunderstanding. I think you have assumed how long the e.u takes with deals to represent the global situation. It doesn't.
Oh dear! So on another thread you accused me of just googling. Your America 18mths is exactly that!
You are increasingly demonstrating your naivety when it comes to UK govt. Just one example...FOIs. You understand exemptions right?
Here are a few examples of FTA negotiations...
“Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP): the CPTPP is a trade agreement between 11 countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The UK applied to join in February 2021. Negotiations started in September 2021.
US: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and the US. Negotiations started in May 2020. An agreement is not expected soon.
India: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and India. Negotiations started on 17 January 2022. The Government had hoped that these negotiations would be completed by October 2022 but this deadline has been missed.”
Let’s see these hit an 18mth timeline (which was for USA anyway).
The American FTAs take on average 18 months...this is just a simple fact. Not something I have just gogoled but I've known for about 4 years based on the breakdown that I know you just looked at.
You are claiming so.ething exists and saying the government won't produce it.
The department has to respond and tell you the data exists . They can refuse to release the data. But again yourr foi request would prove that there were other impact assessments.try it.
Cptpp isn't a bilateral trade agreement. Its a multilateral agreement. We will likely have acceded within 18 months regardless. So we'll under years even though it's not bi lateral.
On the India trade deal. Still another few months yet. India even wanted us to enact some of the agreement early.
No. No agreement with the usa. Talks stopped with Biden. Who stopped all fta talks with every country. But some agreements with individual states to reduce barriers to trade on certain items.
Re: FOI you are right in principle but wrong in practice. But you believe whatever you want to believe.
I don’t need to try it. As I said, I am confident I know more about the workings of senior level govt than you do. I might be wrong of course but based on your posts to date, I doubt it!
I send off plenty. As I like to challenge my government and see data for myself. I know how it works.
I would say based on our other discussions. I dont think you are sadly.
Oh jeez this is hard work. You send in FOI requests. Bully for you. I am talking about what happens on the other side. If you don’t get that then once again very naive and clearly you have no idea what really happens “behind the scenes”.
You’d be wrong on your assumptions about me but I don’t actually care what you think.
Behind the scenes.
Oh ok. The deep conspiracy to hide things.
As I said. If the data is there they have 2 options. Provide the data.
Or admit having the data but not supply it due to sensitivity. Either way you find out its there.
Don't know why you think they would lock away that data. Or that labour and other mps wouldn't demand its release.
You’re wrong but that’s ok. Last time I will say this (already have above) you are correct in principle but not in practice. There are are all manner of ways to avoid disclosing to FOI etc. But hey ho! You clearly believe you know better. You don’t but that’s ok! Enjoy your certainty in life Morley...!
I shall. Sadly in our discussions on threads there have been multiple errors from that side of the debate...even to the point I'd calk them lying.
I had you not knowing the difference between debt and deficit.
People weren't aware that refugees could come to the uk via multiple legal schemes instead of boats.
They weren't aware of how many on those boats were Albanian.
I then had you quickly Googling the scheme and believing they were operating in the country of origin. Not the refugee country.
I've had people down right lie and say no lng gas came from the USA in months I then provided the actual lng import landings from USA register lng vessels.
I had 1 person try claiming Norway delivers LNG via boat and we couldn't store it. I then provided the data that all Norway gas comes via the submerged pipelines.
I had another say we needed Germany to stor our gas. I then proved the uk has bot used German gas in the last 2 years.
I've then proven gdp deflator have changed for our calculations and shown German ones have not. Shown the coi measurements.
I have had you confuse the IMF and IFS organisations.
The list is quite frankly endless of the amount of errors and at times down right lies being spouted on these forums.
So yes. Given I do my research and go to source data, actually know the websites and studies and papers being quoted
I will enjoy my certainty that I do research things more than the majority in these threads.
So much to unpack there! You need to work on the grammar though as you switch between “you” meaning me and “you” meaning groups of people. Several things in that list you seem to be ascribing to me when I have no idea what that discussion was.
You also seem to think you had a win over historical immigration schemes when I out forward a rhetorical question. That’s ok though as I can give you a pass as nuance is hard to get across on social media.
Your perceived “victories” against everyone else on here seem to really matter to you? That feels a little insecure? No need to be because I, and others, have acknowledged that there are some areas where you do seem to know your stuff. But that clearly isn’t a universal truth and it is actually a strength to admit you do not know everything.
And the bottom line specifically related to this thread is that pretty much everyone, including previously hardcore brexiters, are admitting Brexit is a sh1tshow that has negatively, and likely permanently, damaged the UK and undermined our position on the World stage. It has been exacerbated by the ineptitude of the last few years of Tory govt and the likes of Truss and Kwartang. And this means the UK’s negotiating position for trade deals has been weakened!
The more powerful, richer nation should ALWAYS have the upper hand in any negotiation. The UK should have walked all over Australia. We didn’t. Weak weak weak.
Again..have you seen the impact assessment our exports increase significantly more than the aussies.
Habe you read it. Can you tell me where you think the capitulation is?
I've posted it on here. And yet. No 1 can answer?
I dont perceive them as victories. I am trying to highlight to you don't just read a headline for confirmation bias. Interrogate the data.
The fact so many quote things they don't comprehend, don't read, dont check. Is a sad indictment of our electorate.
People go off and do quick Google searches for find a snippet again for confirmation bias. Yet dont read the full article.
I highlighted the immigration one to you because again. You didn't look how the scheme worked in its entirety and assumed we went to Iran or Iraq to find these refugees. Not the refugee camps in third coutnries.
Maybe instead of reply in such haste thinking you have a " gotcha " moment. Read it in full. Educate yourself and be a better debater for it.
Hmmm “highlighted the immigration one to you because again. You didn't look how the scheme worked in its entirety and assumed we went to Iran or Iraq to find these refugees. Not the refugee camps in third coutnries.” I don’t believe I said any such thing or you’re twisting what has been said to fit your narrative? You also posted a list of historical schemes that have been superseded but implied they were all current. No worries you do you.
You still came across as insecure trawling the forums pulling out all the arguments/debates you think you “won”. It’s an odd thing to need for a seemingly intelligent person?"What I replied to you at the time "So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. you should know them There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk. Gateway protection program Vcrs Vprs(originally for Syrias but rolled out to other countries) Calais protocol These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs ACRS exists for Afghans." See bit where I mention they were all rolled into a schene called ukrs This is seriously embarrassing now. As I have said in other threads. Sit back. Take time out. Read what is written. Read around the subject, Then reply. | |||
"'The UK’s flagship post-Brexit trade deal with Australia is “not actually a very good deal”, former environment secretary George Eustice has said.' '“But it has to be said that, overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”' Who to believe? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/flagship-post-brexit-australia-trade-deal-not-actually-very-good-george-eustice Man sacked by liz truss. Aims firing shot at truss. This isn't news. His main gripe was that we gave them complete liberalisation of tarriffs on meat. Something we also gave 27 other e.u national on membership to the s.m If that's a capitulation. I'd hate to think what he thought if the e.u membership. The deal has been released for several months now you can read it if you want. And make your own judgements. Are you suggesting you know more about the trade deal than George Eustice? You can read it yourself. You don’t know more about the trade deal than George Eustice,
He knows the same as me. As every 1 can read the deal.
Would you like me to post it on here. So you can read it yourself?
He is an ‘expert’ you’re just some bloke on a sex site , give me one reason why I should take your word over his
What's he ab expert in? Reading everything some 1 else can read?
What do you think makes him a expert? His 18 months in office?
If that's it...then you're going to have a pretty rough time saying any tory in their cabinet position anything else but an expert from now on
He knows more than you do,
So by your logic truss knows more than him. And so it's a good deal.
Liz truss , she is clueless . Here is an undeniable face, George Eustice knows more about this trade deal than you do
Can you please reconcile how you think a minister who didn't do the trade deals.clnows more than the person who did do them?
Yet I couldn't possibly know more than him having read it?
Can please tell us why he stood in Parliament earlier this year and contradicted what he said? Is he a liar? Does he have no back bone?
It seems when hard questions are asked of you. You just wash rinse repeat the same trope. Without actually dealing with the nuance.
Yes, he is probably a liar, so is thick Lizzie . You’re completely missing my point though , George Eustice, a farmer, ardent Brexit supporter , a former member of UKIP, a former Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, know far far more than you do about this trade deal. Can you please tell me why he is critical of this deal and why he is wrong ?
So then you admit you are backing a proven liar who has contradicted himself.
And you need to resort to name calling prime ministers. How shallow.
Again.
How can he know more on tbe details and implitations vs some 1 who has tbe exact same information in front of them?
Because he is an ‘expert’ and your a random bloke of a sex site with no credibility or experience in this area . What does he have to gain by criticising this deal?
As stated if he's an expert ( he's not) then liz is an expert, boris johnson is an expert etc in every department they every worked in for government
So you have put yourself now in a position with your own logic that you can't criticise any government mi ister as they are all " experts" in their cabinet positions
For the last time, do you know more about this deal than George Eustice? If your only defender of this deal is yourself and Thick Lizzie then I am afraid you have zero credibility
For the last time.
He can't know more or less about the deal than some 1 who has read the deal.
It's a purely a able document to read.
How can he know more about something that any 1 else can read?
So what you're contending is that a document is an item that can be viewed, stripped of wider context?
There are no secondary materials, drafts, intentions, civil servants notes and research? That Tories - as the group involved in creating this deal - have no additional insight than this single document?
That seems spectacularly naive.
Not for the ultimate impact no.
All impact assessment are published too.
Actually they are not. Only those the Government chooses to publish. The govt regularly suppresses information that is too unpalatable.
Which secret ones do you think haven't been published. Let's have them
Now you are being daft. Think about the oxymoron in what you just said!
To paraphrase your own reply to someone else on this thread - I guarantee you that I know more about the internal workings of the UK government at a senior level than you do.
The discussion s about eustice words and the outcome. Of the deal.
I have put the explainer of the absurdity of tbe assertion above.
Regardless of meetings, reports. He's no more clued up on tbe result( the bit he's criticising) than Joe blogging who read it.
Any talk of secret report and assessment is just that. Until they are released.
It's not typical in FTAs that you would have time to do impact assessments after each round. Otherwise ftas would take decades. It takes 3 months just to do the impact assessment post agreement. Imagine doing it after each round of talks.
Imagine the e.u trying to do that for 27 nations.
Son until youncan provide proof. It's just a wild claim.
And ultimately it doesn't affect the stance of the criticism of the deal at its conclusion. By some one who you guys have admitted. It a proven liar
As I said, you don’t really understand the inner workings of the UK government and full remit of the Civil Service (by the way, FTAs do indeed take years rather than being rushed through, quite correct and all about due diligence as the stakes are so high).
Actually thanks to the age of technology. You can discuss these things with those working witb them
There are brilliant things called freedom of information.stion requests and you can even discuss things with those that worked on the deals on twitter. Lord frost for example is some one who engages quite regularly about his time on the nip with myself and others.
Ftas do not take years. On average for America they take 18 months.
On average for most other nations they take about a year when dealing with bilateral agreements and not trade blocs.
Again you show your misunderstanding. I think you have assumed how long the e.u takes with deals to represent the global situation. It doesn't.
Oh dear! So on another thread you accused me of just googling. Your America 18mths is exactly that!
You are increasingly demonstrating your naivety when it comes to UK govt. Just one example...FOIs. You understand exemptions right?
Here are a few examples of FTA negotiations...
“Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP): the CPTPP is a trade agreement between 11 countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The UK applied to join in February 2021. Negotiations started in September 2021.
US: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and the US. Negotiations started in May 2020. An agreement is not expected soon.
India: There is no current trade agreement between the UK and India. Negotiations started on 17 January 2022. The Government had hoped that these negotiations would be completed by October 2022 but this deadline has been missed.”
Let’s see these hit an 18mth timeline (which was for USA anyway).
The American FTAs take on average 18 months...this is just a simple fact. Not something I have just gogoled but I've known for about 4 years based on the breakdown that I know you just looked at.
You are claiming so.ething exists and saying the government won't produce it.
The department has to respond and tell you the data exists . They can refuse to release the data. But again yourr foi request would prove that there were other impact assessments.try it.
Cptpp isn't a bilateral trade agreement. Its a multilateral agreement. We will likely have acceded within 18 months regardless. So we'll under years even though it's not bi lateral.
On the India trade deal. Still another few months yet. India even wanted us to enact some of the agreement early.
No. No agreement with the usa. Talks stopped with Biden. Who stopped all fta talks with every country. But some agreements with individual states to reduce barriers to trade on certain items.
Re: FOI you are right in principle but wrong in practice. But you believe whatever you want to believe.
I don’t need to try it. As I said, I am confident I know more about the workings of senior level govt than you do. I might be wrong of course but based on your posts to date, I doubt it!
I send off plenty. As I like to challenge my government and see data for myself. I know how it works.
I would say based on our other discussions. I dont think you are sadly.
Oh jeez this is hard work. You send in FOI requests. Bully for you. I am talking about what happens on the other side. If you don’t get that then once again very naive and clearly you have no idea what really happens “behind the scenes”.
You’d be wrong on your assumptions about me but I don’t actually care what you think.
Behind the scenes.
Oh ok. The deep conspiracy to hide things.
As I said. If the data is there they have 2 options. Provide the data.
Or admit having the data but not supply it due to sensitivity. Either way you find out its there.
Don't know why you think they would lock away that data. Or that labour and other mps wouldn't demand its release.
You’re wrong but that’s ok. Last time I will say this (already have above) you are correct in principle but not in practice. There are are all manner of ways to avoid disclosing to FOI etc. But hey ho! You clearly believe you know better. You don’t but that’s ok! Enjoy your certainty in life Morley...!
I shall. Sadly in our discussions on threads there have been multiple errors from that side of the debate...even to the point I'd calk them lying.
I had you not knowing the difference between debt and deficit.
People weren't aware that refugees could come to the uk via multiple legal schemes instead of boats.
They weren't aware of how many on those boats were Albanian.
I then had you quickly Googling the scheme and believing they were operating in the country of origin. Not the refugee country.
I've had people down right lie and say no lng gas came from the USA in months I then provided the actual lng import landings from USA register lng vessels.
I had 1 person try claiming Norway delivers LNG via boat and we couldn't store it. I then provided the data that all Norway gas comes via the submerged pipelines.
I had another say we needed Germany to stor our gas. I then proved the uk has bot used German gas in the last 2 years.
I've then proven gdp deflator have changed for our calculations and shown German ones have not. Shown the coi measurements.
I have had you confuse the IMF and IFS organisations.
The list is quite frankly endless of the amount of errors and at times down right lies being spouted on these forums.
So yes. Given I do my research and go to source data, actually know the websites and studies and papers being quoted
I will enjoy my certainty that I do research things more than the majority in these threads.
So much to unpack there! You need to work on the grammar though as you switch between “you” meaning me and “you” meaning groups of people. Several things in that list you seem to be ascribing to me when I have no idea what that discussion was.
You also seem to think you had a win over historical immigration schemes when I out forward a rhetorical question. That’s ok though as I can give you a pass as nuance is hard to get across on social media.
Your perceived “victories” against everyone else on here seem to really matter to you? That feels a little insecure? No need to be because I, and others, have acknowledged that there are some areas where you do seem to know your stuff. But that clearly isn’t a universal truth and it is actually a strength to admit you do not know everything.
And the bottom line specifically related to this thread is that pretty much everyone, including previously hardcore brexiters, are admitting Brexit is a sh1tshow that has negatively, and likely permanently, damaged the UK and undermined our position on the World stage. It has been exacerbated by the ineptitude of the last few years of Tory govt and the likes of Truss and Kwartang. And this means the UK’s negotiating position for trade deals has been weakened!
The more powerful, richer nation should ALWAYS have the upper hand in any negotiation. The UK should have walked all over Australia. We didn’t. Weak weak weak.
Again..have you seen the impact assessment our exports increase significantly more than the aussies.
Habe you read it. Can you tell me where you think the capitulation is?
I've posted it on here. And yet. No 1 can answer?
I dont perceive them as victories. I am trying to highlight to you don't just read a headline for confirmation bias. Interrogate the data.
The fact so many quote things they don't comprehend, don't read, dont check. Is a sad indictment of our electorate.
People go off and do quick Google searches for find a snippet again for confirmation bias. Yet dont read the full article.
I highlighted the immigration one to you because again. You didn't look how the scheme worked in its entirety and assumed we went to Iran or Iraq to find these refugees. Not the refugee camps in third coutnries.
Maybe instead of reply in such haste thinking you have a " gotcha " moment. Read it in full. Educate yourself and be a better debater for it.
Hmmm “highlighted the immigration one to you because again. You didn't look how the scheme worked in its entirety and assumed we went to Iran or Iraq to find these refugees. Not the refugee camps in third coutnries.” I don’t believe I said any such thing or you’re twisting what has been said to fit your narrative? You also posted a list of historical schemes that have been superseded but implied they were all current. No worries you do you.
You still came across as insecure trawling the forums pulling out all the arguments/debates you think you “won”. It’s an odd thing to need for a seemingly intelligent person?
What I replied to you at the time
"So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. you should know them
There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk.
Gateway protection program
Vcrs
Vprs(originally for Syrias but rolled out to other countries)
Calais protocol
These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs
ACRS exists for Afghans."
See bit where I mention they were all rolled into a schene called ukrs
This is seriously embarrassing now. As I have said in other threads. Sit back. Take time out. Read what is written. Read around the subject, Then reply.
"Not remotely embarrassing 
If I had time I would do a deep dive but it is actually easier to tap into your knowledge on this topic | |||
