FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > £12 Trillion Brexit trade boost
£12 Trillion Brexit trade boost
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Blah blah blah.... It's nothing compared to the damage Brexit has caused. No need for any further discussion "Well to be fair signing a trade deal with a bloc of 11 nations, 9 of whom we already have trade deals with, boosting our economy by 0.08% of GDP - sounds like party time! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Blah blah blah.... It's nothing compared to the damage Brexit has caused. No need for any further discussion
Well to be fair signing a trade deal with a bloc of 11 nations, 9 of whom we already have trade deals with, boosting our economy by 0.08% of GDP - sounds like party time! "Party on. I'm feeling a little under the weather and couldn't possibly stand the pessimism so ill give it a miss  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's not to like? "Apparently although signed, it still needs to go through all member parliaments before coming into effect which could take around a year. Then some tariffs in both directions will not be lowered for a while though others I think will be much quicker if not immediate. It's better to have this than not I think but I can't see it helping the current government hold onto office given the time line | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As it stands it will bring some benefit, the potential for future benefits is good. Comparing to losses against being in the EU is the same as saying if the ball had crossed the line it would be a goal, irrelevant..." Careful saying shit like that, you'll get them in your inbox telling you you're wrong and calling you names | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As it stands it will bring some benefit, the potential for future benefits is good. Comparing to losses against being in the EU is the same as saying if the ball had crossed the line it would be a goal, irrelevant... Careful saying shit like that, you'll get them in your inbox telling you you're wrong and calling you names " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Blah blah blah.... It's nothing compared to the damage Brexit has caused. No need for any further discussion
Well to be fair signing a trade deal with a bloc of 11 nations, 9 of whom we already have trade deals with, boosting our economy by 0.08% of GDP - sounds like party time! "I've seen this with the other two being Malaysian ans Brunei irrc. What I have yet to work out is what is it about the agreement that creates an extra boost versus the existing trade agreements. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As it stands it will bring some benefit, the potential for future benefits is good. Comparing to losses against being in the EU is the same as saying if the ball had crossed the line it would be a goal, irrelevant..." How is it irrelevant? - It’s being sold as a Brexit bonus (as this wasn’t possible as a member of the EU). I think it’s perfectly understandable that any post-Brexit deals are going to be compared with what we had as an EU member - that was the whole point of Brexit, was it not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As it stands it will bring some benefit, the potential for future benefits is good. Comparing to losses against being in the EU is the same as saying if the ball had crossed the line it would be a goal, irrelevant... How is it irrelevant? - It’s being sold as a Brexit bonus (as this wasn’t possible as a member of the EU). I think it’s perfectly understandable that any post-Brexit deals are going to be compared with what we had as an EU member - that was the whole point of Brexit, was it not? " We've been through this on these fora on multiple occasions. This was not possible whilst we were in the EU - Ergo, Brexit Benefit. We all know its not a drop in the ocean to what we are supposedly losing due to Brexit. When will it stop? When we've signed enough deals that we can finally say we've outgrown the EU trade deals? I mean, surely we're all aware that Brexit wasn't purely about economics, and in fact for most, it wasn't about economics at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As it stands it will bring some benefit, the potential for future benefits is good. Comparing to losses against being in the EU is the same as saying if the ball had crossed the line it would be a goal, irrelevant... How is it irrelevant? - It’s being sold as a Brexit bonus (as this wasn’t possible as a member of the EU). I think it’s perfectly understandable that any post-Brexit deals are going to be compared with what we had as an EU member - that was the whole point of Brexit, was it not? We've been through this on these fora on multiple occasions. This was not possible whilst we were in the EU - Ergo, Brexit Benefit. We all know its not a drop in the ocean to what we are supposedly losing due to Brexit. When will it stop? When we've signed enough deals that we can finally say we've outgrown the EU trade deals? I mean, surely we're all aware that Brexit wasn't purely about economics, and in fact for most, it wasn't about economics at all." It’s perfectly acceptable to point out that signing a deal which is a fraction of what we had previously is hard to swallow as a ‘Brexit benefit’. Plenty of Eurosceptics whinged for 40 years prior to leaving the EU. I don’t plan on shutting up about the idiocy of Brexit any time soon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As it stands it will bring some benefit, the potential for future benefits is good. Comparing to losses against being in the EU is the same as saying if the ball had crossed the line it would be a goal, irrelevant... How is it irrelevant? - It’s being sold as a Brexit bonus (as this wasn’t possible as a member of the EU). I think it’s perfectly understandable that any post-Brexit deals are going to be compared with what we had as an EU member - that was the whole point of Brexit, was it not? We've been through this on these fora on multiple occasions. This was not possible whilst we were in the EU - Ergo, Brexit Benefit. We all know its not a drop in the ocean to what we are supposedly losing due to Brexit. When will it stop? When we've signed enough deals that we can finally say we've outgrown the EU trade deals? I mean, surely we're all aware that Brexit wasn't purely about economics, and in fact for most, it wasn't about economics at all. It’s perfectly acceptable to point out that signing a deal which is a fraction of what we had previously is hard to swallow as a ‘Brexit benefit’. Plenty of Eurosceptics whinged for 40 years prior to leaving the EU. I don’t plan on shutting up about the idiocy of Brexit any time soon." Hard to swallow or not, it is what it is. If you wanna keep stressing yourself by worrying about it, no one can stop you. Just as if you wanna play tit for tat with eurosceptics, no one can stop you. You're only working yourself up though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Referring to several posts after mine. As I said it is optics. If brexit supporters want to stop remain supporters playing the bet benefit card then stop touting it as a brexit benefit! You know, just say “oh look we have a shiny new trade deal/club membership that provides xyz, yay!” But if you are going to say “oh look we have a shiny new trade deal/club membership that provides xyz and that is only possible because of brexit!” then sorry brexit folks but you are trying to claim something that is currently still a net loss." Those are both the same thing, the last part of your second quote is true. You will notice that this thread was started by an ardent remainer. That means the remainer touted it as a Brexit Benefit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. " As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella?" I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did "And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum? Maybe you are funnier than I thought | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought "I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know "Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As some supermarket chain says “every little helps” It’s good that the government have done this. But how many years will it take to return to our former glory? They said it wouldn’t take too long, now it’s we are carefully examining each deal. Perhaps they realise that striking deals requires more effort than they previously imagined in their little minds. I can just imagine it now, fraught trade negotiations with the Maldives or perhaps the Faroe Islands. And where is that elusive trade deal with the US? Well hopefully a few mosquito trade deals will suffice. Until we get the elephant deal I suppose." We need to accept (and have needed to accept) that we are a good sized economy, who still command respect internationally, but are not a global superpower, and haven’t been since the 1950’s. I think some still labour in the myth of the empire and can’t see the U.K for what we now realistically are - a powerful but second tier nation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley "I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media. The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought "I think what he is saying. Is that the choice to stay or leave was beyond the average person to be able to make a qualified decision. Much better leaving it to knowledgeable and honest politicians. Unless of course the public had chosen to remain. In which case the voters would have been worthy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Referring to several posts after mine. As I said it is optics. If brexit supporters want to stop remain supporters playing the bet benefit card then stop touting it as a brexit benefit! You know, just say “oh look we have a shiny new trade deal/club membership that provides xyz, yay!” But if you are going to say “oh look we have a shiny new trade deal/club membership that provides xyz and that is only possible because of brexit!” then sorry brexit folks but you are trying to claim something that is currently still a net loss. Those are both the same thing, the last part of your second quote is true. You will notice that this thread was started by an ardent remainer. That means the remainer touted it as a Brexit Benefit "They are demonstrably NOT the same thing. I shouldn’t have to explain the difference as it is clear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right?" No, I don't think they would. This thread is about a new trade deal, and it was started by a remainer. I don't see any Brexit supporters telling us what a fantastic opportunity it is, just people complaining that it's not enough. Renault and Geely announced the other day that they were setting up a new international company to make automobile engines, and that they would headquarter it in the UK. That's exactly the sort of investment that remainers said we would never see if we left the EU. No one mentioned it here. Brexit supporters don't seem to be interested in pot banging and point scoring. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Referring to several posts after mine. As I said it is optics. If brexit supporters want to stop remain supporters playing the bet benefit card then stop touting it as a brexit benefit! You know, just say “oh look we have a shiny new trade deal/club membership that provides xyz, yay!” But if you are going to say “oh look we have a shiny new trade deal/club membership that provides xyz and that is only possible because of brexit!” then sorry brexit folks but you are trying to claim something that is currently still a net loss. Those are both the same thing, the last part of your second quote is true. You will notice that this thread was started by an ardent remainer. That means the remainer touted it as a Brexit Benefit
They are demonstrably NOT the same thing. I shouldn’t have to explain the difference as it is clear. "They really are the same thing. However, you missed the most important part of my statement | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But if you are going to say “oh look we have a shiny new trade deal/club membership that provides xyz and that is only possible because of brexit!” then sorry brexit folks but you are trying to claim something that is currently still a net loss." No one did say that. The first person to bring up "Brexit benefit" was you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? No, I don't think they would. This thread is about a new trade deal, and it was started by a remainer. I don't see any Brexit supporters telling us what a fantastic opportunity it is, just people complaining that it's not enough. Renault and Geely announced the other day that they were setting up a new international company to make automobile engines, and that they would headquarter it in the UK. That's exactly the sort of investment that remainers said we would never see if we left the EU. No one mentioned it here. Brexit supporters don't seem to be interested in pot banging and point scoring." Indeed. The HQ will be in the U.K - the vast majority of job creation and manufacturing will not be, though. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1679977775451590656.html Still, a few more office jobs is good though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. " . How would it be possible to be worse off because of Brexit ? . Last time I checked we are still trading with all European countries, just on slightly different terms . How many sets of accounts have you analysed in order to assess the impact ? Most rational people would recognise that you capitalise the set up costs of a project such as Bresit over its life and match them against subsequent revenues. I do not see many hauliers complaining about Brexit. Ending freedom of movement has made it important to concentrate on mechanisation of repetitive tasks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. . How would it be possible to be worse off because of Brexit ? . Last time I checked we are still trading with all European countries, just on slightly different terms . How many sets of accounts have you analysed in order to assess the impact ? Most rational people would recognise that you capitalise the set up costs of a project such as Bresit over its life and match them against subsequent revenues. I do not see many hauliers complaining about Brexit. Ending freedom of movement has made it important to concentrate on mechanisation of repetitive tasks. " Google is your friend, and anecdote does not equal data. The Brexit impact trend is already very visible, and becoming more so with every day. Public perception is following that trend with clear majorities believing that we were wrong to leave (around 55% in polls now) We’re just waiting on the day where one of those responsible states it publicly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We’re just waiting on the day where one of those responsible states it publicly." Judging by the amount of people quoting Nigel Farage recently, it seems that you're not all waiting patiently. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. . How would it be possible to be worse off because of Brexit ? . Last time I checked we are still trading with all European countries, just on slightly different terms . How many sets of accounts have you analysed in order to assess the impact ? Most rational people would recognise that you capitalise the set up costs of a project such as Bresit over its life and match them against subsequent revenues. I do not see many hauliers complaining about Brexit. Ending freedom of movement has made it important to concentrate on mechanisation of repetitive tasks. Google is your friend, and anecdote does not equal data. The Brexit impact trend is already very visible, and becoming more so with every day. Public perception is following that trend with clear majorities believing that we were wrong to leave (around 55% in polls now) We’re just waiting on the day where one of those responsible states it publicly. " . It is difficult to see how Google would help. You can format searches to return the results that you require so it becomes a bit meaningless . I prefer to deal in hard facts . If Brexit was doing any damage to the UK it would be apparent from reviewing company accounts and analysing directors reports. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Blah blah blah.... It's nothing compared to the damage Brexit has caused. No need for any further discussion
Well to be fair signing a trade deal with a bloc of 11 nations, 9 of whom we already have trade deals with, boosting our economy by 0.08% of GDP - sounds like party time! I've seen this with the other two being Malaysian ans Brunei irrc.
What I have yet to work out is what is it about the agreement that creates an extra boost versus the existing trade agreements. "I did read a bit today that mentioned certain things like rules of origin changes, greater inward investment opportunities ect. Also some extra things on the service sector which for the UK is important. Apparently the differences seem to be around those sort of things. I don't even begin to understand it so just saying what I read. As mentioned in my earlier post nothing will happen until next year as it has to be signed off by all concerned | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? No, I don't think they would. This thread is about a new trade deal, and it was started by a remainer. I don't see any Brexit supporters telling us what a fantastic opportunity it is, just people complaining that it's not enough. Renault and Geely announced the other day that they were setting up a new international company to make automobile engines, and that they would headquarter it in the UK. That's exactly the sort of investment that remainers said we would never see if we left the EU. No one mentioned it here. Brexit supporters don't seem to be interested in pot banging and point scoring." I read the Renault story too. Seems to be a big project but unusual in that they were to build conventional petrol engines though hopefully very efficient ones. Seemed to go against the current trend of EV. Anyway if the HQ is in the UK, where is the tax paid on any profits? Is this similar to Google in ROI or am I thinking incorrectly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. . How would it be possible to be worse off because of Brexit ? . Last time I checked we are still trading with all European countries, just on slightly different terms . How many sets of accounts have you analysed in order to assess the impact ? Most rational people would recognise that you capitalise the set up costs of a project such as Bresit over its life and match them against subsequent revenues. I do not see many hauliers complaining about Brexit. Ending freedom of movement has made it important to concentrate on mechanisation of repetitive tasks. Google is your friend, and anecdote does not equal data. The Brexit impact trend is already very visible, and becoming more so with every day. Public perception is following that trend with clear majorities believing that we were wrong to leave (around 55% in polls now) We’re just waiting on the day where one of those responsible states it publicly. . It is difficult to see how Google would help. You can format searches to return the results that you require so it becomes a bit meaningless . I prefer to deal in hard facts . If Brexit was doing any damage to the UK it would be apparent from reviewing company accounts and analysing directors reports. " ‘Hard facts’ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-damage-uk-economy-covid-b2308178.html | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But if you are going to say “oh look we have a shiny new trade deal/club membership that provides xyz and that is only possible because of brexit!” then sorry brexit folks but you are trying to claim something that is currently still a net loss. No one did say that. The first person to bring up "Brexit benefit" was you." I find it astounding how myopic some people can be! I am clearly talking about “out there” ie beyond the teeny tiny world of the Fab Political Forum. Just one example being The Express! Jeez folks I really do wonder sometimes!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Blah blah blah.... It's nothing compared to the damage Brexit has caused. No need for any further discussion
Well to be fair signing a trade deal with a bloc of 11 nations, 9 of whom we already have trade deals with, boosting our economy by 0.08% of GDP - sounds like party time! "Are you trying to say that this is more gaslighting lies about the “benefits” of Brexit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As some supermarket chain says “every little helps” It’s good that the government have done this. But how many years will it take to return to our former glory? They said it wouldn’t take too long, now it’s we are carefully examining each deal. Perhaps they realise that striking deals requires more effort than they previously imagined in their little minds. I can just imagine it now, fraught trade negotiations with the Maldives or perhaps the Faroe Islands. And where is that elusive trade deal with the US? Well hopefully a few mosquito trade deals will suffice. Until we get the elephant deal I suppose. We need to accept (and have needed to accept) that we are a good sized economy, who still command respect internationally, but are not a global superpower, and haven’t been since the 1950’s. I think some still labour in the myth of the empire and can’t see the U.K for what we now realistically are - a powerful but second tier nation. " Yeah realism has to play a part, sadly the stories of old are quite strong in many quarters. But even as a second tier nation, we still have the ability to shape what our economy should be like to become the envy of the world. Free from the shackles of the 20th century ideologies. Unfortunately this government isn’t the right one in place to embrace a radical agenda to get us there, it’s too stuck in the past, and would impoverish this country further by not recognising the blatant opportunities that surround us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But if you are going to say “oh look we have a shiny new trade deal/club membership that provides xyz and that is only possible because of brexit!” then sorry brexit folks but you are trying to claim something that is currently still a net loss." "No one did say that. The first person to bring up "Brexit benefit" was you." "I find it astounding how myopic some people can be! I am clearly talking about “out there” ie beyond the teeny tiny world of the Fab Political Forum. Just one example being The Express!" We clearly have different reading lists. None of the news outlets I read are claiming this to be a Brexit benefit, or reporting anyone else doing that, so it wasn't at all clear to me that you were talking about outside sources. Now that it's clear that you're basing your argument on what's reported in The Express, I'll leave you to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But if you are going to say “oh look we have a shiny new trade deal/club membership that provides xyz and that is only possible because of brexit!” then sorry brexit folks but you are trying to claim something that is currently still a net loss. No one did say that. The first person to bring up "Brexit benefit" was you. I find it astounding how myopic some people can be! I am clearly talking about “out there” ie beyond the teeny tiny world of the Fab Political Forum. Just one example being The Express! We clearly have different reading lists. None of the news outlets I read are claiming this to be a Brexit benefit, or reporting anyone else doing that, so it wasn't at all clear to me that you were talking about outside sources. Now that it's clear that you're basing your argument on what's reported in The Express, I'll leave you to it." People like to blame brexit for the problems we are currently having. Look at the bigger picture. The day of the referendum was the day democracy died. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People like to blame brexit for the problems we are currently having. Look at the bigger picture. The day of the referendum was the day democracy died." You might need to expand on that. Having a poll, counting up the votes, and then taking acting on the result is pretty much the definition of democracy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But if you are going to say “oh look we have a shiny new trade deal/club membership that provides xyz and that is only possible because of brexit!” then sorry brexit folks but you are trying to claim something that is currently still a net loss. No one did say that. The first person to bring up "Brexit benefit" was you. I find it astounding how myopic some people can be! I am clearly talking about “out there” ie beyond the teeny tiny world of the Fab Political Forum. Just one example being The Express! We clearly have different reading lists. None of the news outlets I read are claiming this to be a Brexit benefit, or reporting anyone else doing that, so it wasn't at all clear to me that you were talking about outside sources. Now that it's clear that you're basing your argument on what's reported in The Express, I'll leave you to it." I sit read the express (or any rag tbf) but these articles are widely devoured - and do represent a section of the populace. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brexit, covid, mass migration, climate crisis jumping from one crisis to another the war in Ukraine. You don't think they are linked. Tony Blair along with Bill Gates are pure evil. They have been working together for a very long time. Have a look in to Tony Blair institute for global change or Bill and Melinda's foundations both non for profit or Cherie Blairs institute its all there in black and white." Blair and Gates have something to do with the brexit clusterfuck? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's not to like? "Agreed its a trade bloc worth a lot of money. And thanks to Andrew Neil I now know even more about the exciting assessment. It was based on 2014 data pf trade with those coutnries. Almost a decade out of date. When newzealand scoped a deal with China. They believed it would increase trade 5 fold in 11 years. It did so in 11 months. And as we know. Andrew is a very smart man. 
I wonder how much growth will actually happen.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Blah blah blah.... It's nothing compared to the damage Brexit has caused. No need for any further discussion
Well to be fair signing a trade deal with a bloc of 11 nations, 9 of whom we already have trade deals with, boosting our economy by 0.08% of GDP - sounds like party time! I've seen this with the other two being Malaysian ans Brunei irrc.
What I have yet to work out is what is it about the agreement that creates an extra boost versus the existing trade agreements. "A lot more scope on services and certificate recognition. Most ftas only concern goods. As most were signed pre broadband | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it "Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance. They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance. I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can have as many trade deals as you like, but in the end somebody has to get off their arse and sell something. I used to live in the Far East. The supermarkets were awash with products from Europe, wine, beers, dairy, confectionary ...... with the exception of Whisky, I never saw any UK produce." When you say produce? You mean simply food or drink? Are you thinking of just things you'd traditionally call uk goods like brands if cheese or sauces. E.g if we exported carlseberg from the uk to the far east. Tounwouldnt consider that a uk product? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do we get to have a referendum on whether or not we wish to be a member of The CPTPP ????? "No it's an fta. We never had any fta referendum when the e.u was signing them on our behalf. Maybe if cptpp beco.es a policitical union and our courts cede supremacy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Blah blah blah.... It's nothing compared to the damage Brexit has caused. No need for any further discussion
Well to be fair signing a trade deal with a bloc of 11 nations, 9 of whom we already have trade deals with, boosting our economy by 0.08% of GDP - sounds like party time! I've seen this with the other two being Malaysian ans Brunei irrc.
What I have yet to work out is what is it about the agreement that creates an extra boost versus the existing trade agreements.
A lot more scope on services and certificate recognition.
Most ftas only concern goods. As most were signed pre broadband "
And not a gotcha .... Did any of these areas regress going from being in the EU to simply having an FTA? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Blah blah blah.... It's nothing compared to the damage Brexit has caused. No need for any further discussion
Well to be fair signing a trade deal with a bloc of 11 nations, 9 of whom we already have trade deals with, boosting our economy by 0.08% of GDP - sounds like party time! I've seen this with the other two being Malaysian ans Brunei irrc.
What I have yet to work out is what is it about the agreement that creates an extra boost versus the existing trade agreements.
A lot more scope on services and certificate recognition.
Most ftas only concern goods. As most were signed pre broadband
And not a gotcha .... Did any of these areas regress going from being in the EU to simply having an FTA? "As in did we lose our right to access the e.u for some financial services. Then yes we did The e.u reneged on its agreement of equivalency for trading financial instruments as 1 example. It also reneged on horizon agreement too.( I would rather us not be in that personally though) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Blah blah blah.... It's nothing compared to the damage Brexit has caused. No need for any further discussion
Well to be fair signing a trade deal with a bloc of 11 nations, 9 of whom we already have trade deals with, boosting our economy by 0.08% of GDP - sounds like party time! I've seen this with the other two being Malaysian ans Brunei irrc.
What I have yet to work out is what is it about the agreement that creates an extra boost versus the existing trade agreements.
A lot more scope on services and certificate recognition.
Most ftas only concern goods. As most were signed pre broadband
And not a gotcha .... Did any of these areas regress going from being in the EU to simply having an FTA?
As in did we lose our right to access the e.u for some financial services.
Then yes we did
The e.u reneged on its agreement of equivalency for trading financial instruments as 1 example.
It also reneged on horizon agreement too.( I would rather us not be in that personally though)
"how about certificate recognition? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Blah blah blah.... It's nothing compared to the damage Brexit has caused. No need for any further discussion
Well to be fair signing a trade deal with a bloc of 11 nations, 9 of whom we already have trade deals with, boosting our economy by 0.08% of GDP - sounds like party time! I've seen this with the other two being Malaysian ans Brunei irrc.
What I have yet to work out is what is it about the agreement that creates an extra boost versus the existing trade agreements.
A lot more scope on services and certificate recognition.
Most ftas only concern goods. As most were signed pre broadband
And not a gotcha .... Did any of these areas regress going from being in the EU to simply having an FTA?
As in did we lose our right to access the e.u for some financial services.
Then yes we did
The e.u reneged on its agreement of equivalency for trading financial instruments as 1 example.
It also reneged on horizon agreement too.( I would rather us not be in that personally though)
how about certificate recognition? "Yes in some cptpp there is that and in our other ftas. I'm not sure of the entirety of the scope. That's going into granular detail of each industry. E.g for accounting my industry it wouldn't make a difference for me personally as I did acca international. I assume most certificates inside e.u were valid, but I can't guarantee as that would be how the single market works, but that's an assumption. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can have as many trade deals as you like, but in the end somebody has to get off their arse and sell something. I used to live in the Far East. The supermarkets were awash with products from Europe, wine, beers, dairy, confectionary ...... with the exception of Whisky, I never saw any UK produce. When you say produce? You mean simply food or drink? Are you thinking of just things you'd traditionally call uk goods like brands if cheese or sauces. E.g if we exported carlseberg from the uk to the far east. Tounwouldnt consider that a uk product?" Yes, I am talking primarily about food and drink, although it applies broader too I'm sure. Let me give you an example : beer. As the craft beer trend developed, thousands of microbreweries/bars opened across China selling IPA type beers. Invariably run by Americans, Australians, Germans, French, Belgians. Not a a single Brit bar (despite inventing IPA). My point is, we have lost a sense of entrepreneurship - made worse by lack of government support for export industry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Blah blah blah.... It's nothing compared to the damage Brexit has caused. No need for any further discussion
Well to be fair signing a trade deal with a bloc of 11 nations, 9 of whom we already have trade deals with, boosting our economy by 0.08% of GDP - sounds like party time! "I believe that 0.08% figure is over the next 10 years. What a boost to the post Brexit economy. Well done Britian. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's not to like?
Agreed its a trade bloc worth a lot of money.
And thanks to Andrew Neil I now know even more about the exciting assessment. It was based on 2014 data pf trade with those coutnries.
Almost a decade out of date.
When newzealand scoped a deal with China. They believed it would increase trade 5 fold in 11 years.
It did so in 11 months.
And as we know. Andrew is a very smart man.
I wonder how much growth will actually happen.
"Shame Kemi Baddonoch is quoting same 0.08% figure then! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
"Gaslighting again Morley! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's not to like?
Agreed its a trade bloc worth a lot of money.
And thanks to Andrew Neil I now know even more about the exciting assessment. It was based on 2014 data pf trade with those coutnries.
Almost a decade out of date.
When newzealand scoped a deal with China. They believed it would increase trade 5 fold in 11 years.
It did so in 11 months.
And as we know. Andrew is a very smart man.
I wonder how much growth will actually happen.
Shame Kemi Baddonoch is quoting same 0.08% figure then!"She is. No further assessment has been made | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!"Describing events as they unfolded. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Blah blah blah.... It's nothing compared to the damage Brexit has caused. No need for any further discussion
Well to be fair signing a trade deal with a bloc of 11 nations, 9 of whom we already have trade deals with, boosting our economy by 0.08% of GDP - sounds like party time!
I believe that 0.08% figure is over the next 10 years. What a boost to the post Brexit economy. Well done Britian."It's from 2014 data. Doesn't include any other countries joining which doesn't look to be the case, and is off a static model. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As it stands it will bring some benefit, the potential for future benefits is good. Comparing to losses against being in the EU is the same as saying if the ball had crossed the line it would be a goal, irrelevant... How is it irrelevant? - It’s being sold as a Brexit bonus (as this wasn’t possible as a member of the EU). I think it’s perfectly understandable that any post-Brexit deals are going to be compared with what we had as an EU member - that was the whole point of Brexit, was it not? " Who is selling this as a brexit benefit? We have left the EU, we are creating trade deals that could mature into something more substantial and yet here we are again, kicking it down the street with the usual brexit tie ins. We are not going back into the EU anytime soon, so you are either going to have a very long grudge or you can simply accept that the country has moved on. One other point, it wasn't this government who took us out of the EU, it was the people of the UK... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can have as many trade deals as you like, but in the end somebody has to get off their arse and sell something. I used to live in the Far East. The supermarkets were awash with products from Europe, wine, beers, dairy, confectionary ...... with the exception of Whisky, I never saw any UK produce. When you say produce? You mean simply food or drink? Are you thinking of just things you'd traditionally call uk goods like brands if cheese or sauces. E.g if we exported carlseberg from the uk to the far east. Tounwouldnt consider that a uk product? Yes, I am talking primarily about food and drink, although it applies broader too I'm sure. Let me give you an example : beer. As the craft beer trend developed, thousands of microbreweries/bars opened across China selling IPA type beers. Invariably run by Americans, Australians, Germans, French, Belgians. Not a a single Brit bar (despite inventing IPA). My point is, we have lost a sense of entrepreneurship - made worse by lack of government support for export industry. " Any particular brands? Just curious. Because brewdog own assessment disagrees? Exports to continental Europe remain the biggest overseas market, but BrewDog continues to see rapidly increasing demand from Oceania and Asia, particularly in China. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As it stands it will bring some benefit, the potential for future benefits is good. Comparing to losses against being in the EU is the same as saying if the ball had crossed the line it would be a goal, irrelevant... How is it irrelevant? - It’s being sold as a Brexit bonus (as this wasn’t possible as a member of the EU). I think it’s perfectly understandable that any post-Brexit deals are going to be compared with what we had as an EU member - that was the whole point of Brexit, was it not? Who is selling this as a brexit benefit? We have left the EU, we are creating trade deals that could mature into something more substantial and yet here we are again, kicking it down the street with the usual brexit tie ins. We are not going back into the EU anytime soon, so you are either going to have a very long grudge or you can simply accept that the country has moved on. One other point, it wasn't this government who took us out of the EU, it was the people of the UK..." No. It was the government who chose a) to enact the referendum result, and b) the method of leaving. Since we live in a parliamentary democracy, referendums hold no legal weight. And even accepting that it was right to leave the EU due to the result, it was U.K. govt that chose not to look at an EFTA arrangement or suchlike that would have limited the damage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As it stands it will bring some benefit, the potential for future benefits is good. Comparing to losses against being in the EU is the same as saying if the ball had crossed the line it would be a goal, irrelevant... How is it irrelevant? - It’s being sold as a Brexit bonus (as this wasn’t possible as a member of the EU). I think it’s perfectly understandable that any post-Brexit deals are going to be compared with what we had as an EU member - that was the whole point of Brexit, was it not? Who is selling this as a brexit benefit? We have left the EU, we are creating trade deals that could mature into something more substantial and yet here we are again, kicking it down the street with the usual brexit tie ins. We are not going back into the EU anytime soon, so you are either going to have a very long grudge or you can simply accept that the country has moved on. One other point, it wasn't this government who took us out of the EU, it was the people of the UK... No. It was the government who chose a) to enact the referendum result, and b) the method of leaving. Since we live in a parliamentary democracy, referendums hold no legal weight. And even accepting that it was right to leave the EU due to the result, it was U.K. govt that chose not to look at an EFTA arrangement or suchlike that would have limited the damage. " You can't have a lot of straws left... It could help to let go of them completely | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As it stands it will bring some benefit, the potential for future benefits is good. Comparing to losses against being in the EU is the same as saying if the ball had crossed the line it would be a goal, irrelevant... How is it irrelevant? - It’s being sold as a Brexit bonus (as this wasn’t possible as a member of the EU). I think it’s perfectly understandable that any post-Brexit deals are going to be compared with what we had as an EU member - that was the whole point of Brexit, was it not? Who is selling this as a brexit benefit? We have left the EU, we are creating trade deals that could mature into something more substantial and yet here we are again, kicking it down the street with the usual brexit tie ins. We are not going back into the EU anytime soon, so you are either going to have a very long grudge or you can simply accept that the country has moved on. One other point, it wasn't this government who took us out of the EU, it was the people of the UK... No. It was the government who chose a) to enact the referendum result, and b) the method of leaving. Since we live in a parliamentary democracy, referendums hold no legal weight. And even accepting that it was right to leave the EU due to the result, it was U.K. govt that chose not to look at an EFTA arrangement or suchlike that would have limited the damage. You can't have a lot of straws left... It could help to let go of them completely "It’s not clutching at straws when you point out demonstrable facts  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As it stands it will bring some benefit, the potential for future benefits is good. Comparing to losses against being in the EU is the same as saying if the ball had crossed the line it would be a goal, irrelevant... How is it irrelevant? - It’s being sold as a Brexit bonus (as this wasn’t possible as a member of the EU). I think it’s perfectly understandable that any post-Brexit deals are going to be compared with what we had as an EU member - that was the whole point of Brexit, was it not? Who is selling this as a brexit benefit? We have left the EU, we are creating trade deals that could mature into something more substantial and yet here we are again, kicking it down the street with the usual brexit tie ins. We are not going back into the EU anytime soon, so you are either going to have a very long grudge or you can simply accept that the country has moved on. One other point, it wasn't this government who took us out of the EU, it was the people of the UK... No. It was the government who chose a) to enact the referendum result, and b) the method of leaving. Since we live in a parliamentary democracy, referendums hold no legal weight. And even accepting that it was right to leave the EU due to the result, it was U.K. govt that chose not to look at an EFTA arrangement or suchlike that would have limited the damage. You can't have a lot of straws left... It could help to let go of them completely
It’s not clutching at straws when you point out demonstrable facts "but it is when you suggesting the government should not have actioned the outcome of a national referendum. Anyone for a slice of dictatorship 101? Crazy talk and we would be in a hell of worse mess now if they had ignored the result. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can have as many trade deals as you like, but in the end somebody has to get off their arse and sell something. I used to live in the Far East. The supermarkets were awash with products from Europe, wine, beers, dairy, confectionary ...... with the exception of Whisky, I never saw any UK produce. When you say produce? You mean simply food or drink? Are you thinking of just things you'd traditionally call uk goods like brands if cheese or sauces. E.g if we exported carlseberg from the uk to the far east. Tounwouldnt consider that a uk product? Yes, I am talking primarily about food and drink, although it applies broader too I'm sure. Let me give you an example : beer. As the craft beer trend developed, thousands of microbreweries/bars opened across China selling IPA type beers. Invariably run by Americans, Australians, Germans, French, Belgians. Not a a single Brit bar (despite inventing IPA). My point is, we have lost a sense of entrepreneurship - made worse by lack of government support for export industry. Any particular brands? Just curious. Because brewdog own assessment disagrees? Exports to continental Europe remain the biggest overseas market, but BrewDog continues to see rapidly increasing demand from Oceania and Asia, particularly in China. " There were two types of craft beer places : huge 'warehouse' size bars (Stones, Goose Island, Paulaner ....) and smaller street bars that sold local brews and imported bottles (mostly Belgian). Maybe Brewdog will penetrate the Asian market but they're behind the curve. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As it stands it will bring some benefit, the potential for future benefits is good. Comparing to losses against being in the EU is the same as saying if the ball had crossed the line it would be a goal, irrelevant... How is it irrelevant? - It’s being sold as a Brexit bonus (as this wasn’t possible as a member of the EU). I think it’s perfectly understandable that any post-Brexit deals are going to be compared with what we had as an EU member - that was the whole point of Brexit, was it not? Who is selling this as a brexit benefit? We have left the EU, we are creating trade deals that could mature into something more substantial and yet here we are again, kicking it down the street with the usual brexit tie ins. We are not going back into the EU anytime soon, so you are either going to have a very long grudge or you can simply accept that the country has moved on. One other point, it wasn't this government who took us out of the EU, it was the people of the UK... No. It was the government who chose a) to enact the referendum result, and b) the method of leaving. Since we live in a parliamentary democracy, referendums hold no legal weight. And even accepting that it was right to leave the EU due to the result, it was U.K. govt that chose not to look at an EFTA arrangement or suchlike that would have limited the damage. You can't have a lot of straws left... It could help to let go of them completely
It’s not clutching at straws when you point out demonstrable facts but it is when you suggesting the government should not have actioned the outcome of a national referendum.
Anyone for a slice of dictatorship 101? Crazy talk and we would be in a hell of worse mess now if they had ignored the result."I didn’t say should, though. I pointed out that referendums hold no legal weight in the U.K. (unless specifically mentioned in the referendum act, which would typically then require a supermajority). The government could have legally ignored the result - yes the ramifications would have been dramatic, but that doesn’t change the legal status. And as I also said, the govt. could have kept us in the SM/CU, with an efta type arrangement, retained FoM and still have successfully left the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
"You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As it stands it will bring some benefit, the potential for future benefits is good. Comparing to losses against being in the EU is the same as saying if the ball had crossed the line it would be a goal, irrelevant... How is it irrelevant? - It’s being sold as a Brexit bonus (as this wasn’t possible as a member of the EU). I think it’s perfectly understandable that any post-Brexit deals are going to be compared with what we had as an EU member - that was the whole point of Brexit, was it not? Who is selling this as a brexit benefit? We have left the EU, we are creating trade deals that could mature into something more substantial and yet here we are again, kicking it down the street with the usual brexit tie ins. We are not going back into the EU anytime soon, so you are either going to have a very long grudge or you can simply accept that the country has moved on. One other point, it wasn't this government who took us out of the EU, it was the people of the UK... No. It was the government who chose a) to enact the referendum result, and b) the method of leaving. Since we live in a parliamentary democracy, referendums hold no legal weight. And even accepting that it was right to leave the EU due to the result, it was U.K. govt that chose not to look at an EFTA arrangement or suchlike that would have limited the damage. You can't have a lot of straws left... It could help to let go of them completely
It’s not clutching at straws when you point out demonstrable facts but it is when you suggesting the government should not have actioned the outcome of a national referendum.
Anyone for a slice of dictatorship 101? Crazy talk and we would be in a hell of worse mess now if they had ignored the result."Yeah but putting on the pedants hat that sometimes gets worn in these forums...the Referendum in 2016 was NOT legally binding, it was advisory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As it stands it will bring some benefit, the potential for future benefits is good. Comparing to losses against being in the EU is the same as saying if the ball had crossed the line it would be a goal, irrelevant... How is it irrelevant? - It’s being sold as a Brexit bonus (as this wasn’t possible as a member of the EU). I think it’s perfectly understandable that any post-Brexit deals are going to be compared with what we had as an EU member - that was the whole point of Brexit, was it not? Who is selling this as a brexit benefit? We have left the EU, we are creating trade deals that could mature into something more substantial and yet here we are again, kicking it down the street with the usual brexit tie ins. We are not going back into the EU anytime soon, so you are either going to have a very long grudge or you can simply accept that the country has moved on. One other point, it wasn't this government who took us out of the EU, it was the people of the UK... No. It was the government who chose a) to enact the referendum result, and b) the method of leaving. Since we live in a parliamentary democracy, referendums hold no legal weight. And even accepting that it was right to leave the EU due to the result, it was U.K. govt that chose not to look at an EFTA arrangement or suchlike that would have limited the damage. You can't have a lot of straws left... It could help to let go of them completely
It’s not clutching at straws when you point out demonstrable facts but it is when you suggesting the government should not have actioned the outcome of a national referendum.
Anyone for a slice of dictatorship 101? Crazy talk and we would be in a hell of worse mess now if they had ignored the result.
I didn’t say should, though.
I pointed out that referendums hold no legal weight in the U.K. (unless specifically mentioned in the referendum act, which would typically then require a supermajority).
The government could have legally ignored the result - yes the ramifications would have been dramatic, but that doesn’t change the legal status.
And as I also said, the govt. could have kept us in the SM/CU, with an efta type arrangement, retained FoM and still have successfully left the EU."This is all demonstrably correct. The British Govt determined the nature of how we left the EU and the terms of our future relationship. THAT was the biggest mistake Cameron made. He was so confident of a Remain win he made no arrangements for a two part referendum with the second triggered by a vote for Leave that covered the future relationship. Even Farage was touting a Norway style (EFTA) deal! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As it stands it will bring some benefit, the potential for future benefits is good. Comparing to losses against being in the EU is the same as saying if the ball had crossed the line it would be a goal, irrelevant... How is it irrelevant? - It’s being sold as a Brexit bonus (as this wasn’t possible as a member of the EU). I think it’s perfectly understandable that any post-Brexit deals are going to be compared with what we had as an EU member - that was the whole point of Brexit, was it not? Who is selling this as a brexit benefit? We have left the EU, we are creating trade deals that could mature into something more substantial and yet here we are again, kicking it down the street with the usual brexit tie ins. We are not going back into the EU anytime soon, so you are either going to have a very long grudge or you can simply accept that the country has moved on. One other point, it wasn't this government who took us out of the EU, it was the people of the UK... No. It was the government who chose a) to enact the referendum result, and b) the method of leaving. Since we live in a parliamentary democracy, referendums hold no legal weight. And even accepting that it was right to leave the EU due to the result, it was U.K. govt that chose not to look at an EFTA arrangement or suchlike that would have limited the damage. You can't have a lot of straws left... It could help to let go of them completely
It’s not clutching at straws when you point out demonstrable facts but it is when you suggesting the government should not have actioned the outcome of a national referendum.
Anyone for a slice of dictatorship 101? Crazy talk and we would be in a hell of worse mess now if they had ignored the result.
I didn’t say should, though.
I pointed out that referendums hold no legal weight in the U.K. (unless specifically mentioned in the referendum act, which would typically then require a supermajority).
The government could have legally ignored the result - yes the ramifications would have been dramatic, but that doesn’t change the legal status.
And as I also said, the govt. could have kept us in the SM/CU, with an efta type arrangement, retained FoM and still have successfully left the EU.
This is all demonstrably correct. The British Govt determined the nature of how we left the EU and the terms of our future relationship.
THAT was the biggest mistake Cameron made. He was so confident of a Remain win he made no arrangements for a two part referendum with the second triggered by a vote for Leave that covered the future relationship.
Even Farage was touting a Norway style (EFTA) deal!"Agreed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can have as many trade deals as you like, but in the end somebody has to get off their arse and sell something. I used to live in the Far East. The supermarkets were awash with products from Europe, wine, beers, dairy, confectionary ...... with the exception of Whisky, I never saw any UK produce. When you say produce? You mean simply food or drink? Are you thinking of just things you'd traditionally call uk goods like brands if cheese or sauces. E.g if we exported carlseberg from the uk to the far east. Tounwouldnt consider that a uk product? Yes, I am talking primarily about food and drink, although it applies broader too I'm sure. Let me give you an example : beer. As the craft beer trend developed, thousands of microbreweries/bars opened across China selling IPA type beers. Invariably run by Americans, Australians, Germans, French, Belgians. Not a a single Brit bar (despite inventing IPA). My point is, we have lost a sense of entrepreneurship - made worse by lack of government support for export industry. Any particular brands? Just curious. Because brewdog own assessment disagrees? Exports to continental Europe remain the biggest overseas market, but BrewDog continues to see rapidly increasing demand from Oceania and Asia, particularly in China. There were two types of craft beer places : huge 'warehouse' size bars (Stones, Goose Island, Paulaner ....) and smaller street bars that sold local brews and imported bottles (mostly Belgian). Maybe Brewdog will penetrate the Asian market but they're behind the curve." If you are talking strictly British looking brands then I hope we can. I think you need to be wary of exports vs UK brewers buying into companies. As per the above. Inbev produced beer in China. Brewdog is brewing directly. Out there. In bev does this already with British brands you'd maybe not associate as british. E.g Miller which was bought buy inbev was in America. But it was a company listed in the uk at the time when it penetrated China before the buyout. But I would hope the local uk companies can begin penetrative the marker | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly."Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As it stands it will bring some benefit, the potential for future benefits is good. Comparing to losses against being in the EU is the same as saying if the ball had crossed the line it would be a goal, irrelevant... How is it irrelevant? - It’s being sold as a Brexit bonus (as this wasn’t possible as a member of the EU). I think it’s perfectly understandable that any post-Brexit deals are going to be compared with what we had as an EU member - that was the whole point of Brexit, was it not? Who is selling this as a brexit benefit? We have left the EU, we are creating trade deals that could mature into something more substantial and yet here we are again, kicking it down the street with the usual brexit tie ins. We are not going back into the EU anytime soon, so you are either going to have a very long grudge or you can simply accept that the country has moved on. One other point, it wasn't this government who took us out of the EU, it was the people of the UK... No. It was the government who chose a) to enact the referendum result, and b) the method of leaving. Since we live in a parliamentary democracy, referendums hold no legal weight. And even accepting that it was right to leave the EU due to the result, it was U.K. govt that chose not to look at an EFTA arrangement or suchlike that would have limited the damage. You can't have a lot of straws left... It could help to let go of them completely
It’s not clutching at straws when you point out demonstrable facts but it is when you suggesting the government should not have actioned the outcome of a national referendum.
Anyone for a slice of dictatorship 101? Crazy talk and we would be in a hell of worse mess now if they had ignored the result.
Yeah but putting on the pedants hat that sometimes gets worn in these forums...the Referendum in 2016 was NOT legally binding, it was advisory. "Sadly we were told multiple times it would be anacted. You are saying tbe uk government should have acted in bad faith to the electorate. Not thay we weren't used to it. We were promised referendums before maasstricht and before 2004 tce | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly.
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
"What did I do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly.
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
What did I do?"Birldn forgetting they were the ones asking about twitter followers. And assuming my follower count mean expertise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly.
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
What did I do?
Birldn forgetting they were the ones asking about twitter followers. And assuming my follower count mean expertise."Tbf I was talking to Mr Notsofun... But yeah... I'd also like to point out once more that this thread, and in fact, most 'benefit' threads are started by remainers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly.
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
What did I do?
Birldn forgetting they were the ones asking about twitter followers. And assuming my follower count mean expertise.
Tbf I was talking to Mr Notsofun...
But yeah...
I'd also like to point out once more that this thread, and in fact, most 'benefit' threads are started by remainers."I am not a remainer. I am a leaver realist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly.
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
What did I do?
Birldn forgetting they were the ones asking about twitter followers. And assuming my follower count mean expertise.
Tbf I was talking to Mr Notsofun...
But yeah...
I'd also like to point out once more that this thread, and in fact, most 'benefit' threads are started by remainers.
I am not a remainer. I am a leaver realist."You also didn't start the thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly.
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
What did I do?
Birldn forgetting they were the ones asking about twitter followers. And assuming my follower count mean expertise.
Tbf I was talking to Mr Notsofun...
But yeah...
I'd also like to point out once more that this thread, and in fact, most 'benefit' threads are started by remainers."Why talking to me? I never mentioned you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly.
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
"They didn’t. Can’t remember Fab’s comment but Feisty got wrong end of stick and was a bit confused. You were totally and clearly linking credibility with number of twitter followers then desperately tried to back peddle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As it stands it will bring some benefit, the potential for future benefits is good. Comparing to losses against being in the EU is the same as saying if the ball had crossed the line it would be a goal, irrelevant... How is it irrelevant? - It’s being sold as a Brexit bonus (as this wasn’t possible as a member of the EU). I think it’s perfectly understandable that any post-Brexit deals are going to be compared with what we had as an EU member - that was the whole point of Brexit, was it not? Who is selling this as a brexit benefit? We have left the EU, we are creating trade deals that could mature into something more substantial and yet here we are again, kicking it down the street with the usual brexit tie ins. We are not going back into the EU anytime soon, so you are either going to have a very long grudge or you can simply accept that the country has moved on. One other point, it wasn't this government who took us out of the EU, it was the people of the UK... No. It was the government who chose a) to enact the referendum result, and b) the method of leaving. Since we live in a parliamentary democracy, referendums hold no legal weight. And even accepting that it was right to leave the EU due to the result, it was U.K. govt that chose not to look at an EFTA arrangement or suchlike that would have limited the damage. You can't have a lot of straws left... It could help to let go of them completely
It’s not clutching at straws when you point out demonstrable facts but it is when you suggesting the government should not have actioned the outcome of a national referendum.
Anyone for a slice of dictatorship 101? Crazy talk and we would be in a hell of worse mess now if they had ignored the result.
Yeah but putting on the pedants hat that sometimes gets worn in these forums...the Referendum in 2016 was NOT legally binding, it was advisory.
Sadly we were told multiple times it would be anacted.
You are saying tbe uk government should have acted in bad faith to the electorate.
Not thay we weren't used to it.
We were promised referendums before maasstricht and before 2004 tce"Bad form Morley putting words in my mouth! Show me where I said the Govt should have acted in bad faith? Now what part of “the Referendum in 2016 was NOT legally binding, it was advisory.” is incorrect? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly.
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
They didn’t. Can’t remember Fab’s comment but Feisty got wrong end of stick and was a bit confused. You were totally and clearly linking credibility with number of twitter followers then desperately tried to back peddle."Love that you're still in denial about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly.
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
What did I do?
Birldn forgetting they were the ones asking about twitter followers. And assuming my follower count mean expertise.
Tbf I was talking to Mr Notsofun...
But yeah...
I'd also like to point out once more that this thread, and in fact, most 'benefit' threads are started by remainers.
Why talking to me? I never mentioned you "We were talking above when Twitter followers were mentioned 
I was telling Morley I was talking to you, not Birldn.
Did I really need to explain that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly.
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
What did I do?
Birldn forgetting they were the ones asking about twitter followers. And assuming my follower count mean expertise."Nope. Gaslighting! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly.
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
They didn’t. Can’t remember Fab’s comment but Feisty got wrong end of stick and was a bit confused. You were totally and clearly linking credibility with number of twitter followers then desperately tried to back peddle."I got the wrong end of the stick and was a bit confused? Isn't this the same gaslighting that you're accusing others of? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly.
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
What did I do?
Birldn forgetting they were the ones asking about twitter followers. And assuming my follower count mean expertise.
Tbf I was talking to Mr Notsofun...
But yeah...
I'd also like to point out once more that this thread, and in fact, most 'benefit' threads are started by remainers."I took the OP in this thread to be ironic! And therefore pointing out this win (good as it is) still doesn’t make up for the loss. Perhaps the OP could clarify intent? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly.
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
They didn’t. Can’t remember Fab’s comment but Feisty got wrong end of stick and was a bit confused. You were totally and clearly linking credibility with number of twitter followers then desperately tried to back peddle.
Love that you're still in denial about it.
"A tiny bit amused you were caught out but hey ho! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly.
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
They didn’t. Can’t remember Fab’s comment but Feisty got wrong end of stick and was a bit confused. You were totally and clearly linking credibility with number of twitter followers then desperately tried to back peddle.
I got the wrong end of the stick and was a bit confused?
Isn't this the same gaslighting that you're accusing others of?"No! On that occasion I recall you defending Morley but on the wrong point. If it matters to you and Morley so much please go back and find the relevant thread and quote all relevant posts. Personally I CBA. It was clear as day what Morley tried to do then back peddled claiming a different intent but in a nutshell: 1. Morley talked about his Twitter account and having “significant followers” in the context of being credible (and said something about having met hundreds of his followers). 2. Asked what significant was Morley said “over 10,000”. 3. It was then pointed out that this meant he had more followers then his often quoted/go to sources (at the time Gully Foyle and Dilip Shah were mentioned) and he started back peddling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly.
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
They didn’t. Can’t remember Fab’s comment but Feisty got wrong end of stick and was a bit confused. You were totally and clearly linking credibility with number of twitter followers then desperately tried to back peddle.
I got the wrong end of the stick and was a bit confused?
Isn't this the same gaslighting that you're accusing others of?
No! On that occasion I recall you defending Morley but on the wrong point. If it matters to you and Morley so much please go back and find the relevant thread and quote all relevant posts. Personally I CBA. It was clear as day what Morley tried to do then back peddled claiming a different intent but in a nutshell:
1. Morley talked about his Twitter account and having “significant followers” in the context of being credible (and said something about having met hundreds of his followers).
2. Asked what significant was Morley said “over 10,000”.
3. It was then pointed out that this meant he had more followers then his often quoted/go to sources (at the time Gully Foyle and Dilip Shah were mentioned) and he started back peddling."I'm not arsed going to find it. What I can tell you though... I wasn't confused. You've asked for the OP to provide clarity in this thread. Morley provided clarity in that thread, the problem lies in you not believing him and accusing him of back peddling instead. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly.
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
They didn’t. Can’t remember Fab’s comment but Feisty got wrong end of stick and was a bit confused. You were totally and clearly linking credibility with number of twitter followers then desperately tried to back peddle.
I got the wrong end of the stick and was a bit confused?
Isn't this the same gaslighting that you're accusing others of?
No! On that occasion I recall you defending Morley but on the wrong point. If it matters to you and Morley so much please go back and find the relevant thread and quote all relevant posts. Personally I CBA. It was clear as day what Morley tried to do then back peddled claiming a different intent but in a nutshell:
1. Morley talked about his Twitter account and having “significant followers” in the context of being credible (and said something about having met hundreds of his followers).
2. Asked what significant was Morley said “over 10,000”.
3. It was then pointed out that this meant he had more followers then his often quoted/go to sources (at the time Gully Foyle and Dilip Shah were mentioned) and he started back peddling.
I'm not arsed going to find it.
What I can tell you though...
I wasn't confused. You've asked for the OP to provide clarity in this thread. Morley provided clarity in that thread, the problem lies in you not believing him and accusing him of back peddling instead."You are right I am totally confused by your last paragraph? The whole gaslighting point has nothing to do with this thread. Morley’s Twitter claims are historic but he brought it up claiming he was misrepresented when in fact he is the one misrepresenting the other thread. I addressed that. It wasn’t about this thread! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly.
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
They didn’t. Can’t remember Fab’s comment but Feisty got wrong end of stick and was a bit confused. You were totally and clearly linking credibility with number of twitter followers then desperately tried to back peddle.
I got the wrong end of the stick and was a bit confused?
Isn't this the same gaslighting that you're accusing others of?
No! On that occasion I recall you defending Morley but on the wrong point. If it matters to you and Morley so much please go back and find the relevant thread and quote all relevant posts. Personally I CBA. It was clear as day what Morley tried to do then back peddled claiming a different intent but in a nutshell:
1. Morley talked about his Twitter account and having “significant followers” in the context of being credible (and said something about having met hundreds of his followers).
2. Asked what significant was Morley said “over 10,000”.
3. It was then pointed out that this meant he had more followers then his often quoted/go to sources (at the time Gully Foyle and Dilip Shah were mentioned) and he started back peddling.
I'm not arsed going to find it.
What I can tell you though...
I wasn't confused. You've asked for the OP to provide clarity in this thread. Morley provided clarity in that thread, the problem lies in you not believing him and accusing him of back peddling instead.
You are right I am totally confused by your last paragraph?
The whole gaslighting point has nothing to do with this thread. Morley’s Twitter claims are historic but he brought it up claiming he was misrepresented when in fact he is the one misrepresenting the other thread. I addressed that. It wasn’t about this thread!"Fair enough. We shall just forget it, seeing as you're now confused. I was never confused so I'd prefer you didn't 'misrepresent' from another thread that isn't about this thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly.
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
They didn’t. Can’t remember Fab’s comment but Feisty got wrong end of stick and was a bit confused. You were totally and clearly linking credibility with number of twitter followers then desperately tried to back peddle.
I got the wrong end of the stick and was a bit confused?
Isn't this the same gaslighting that you're accusing others of?
No! On that occasion I recall you defending Morley but on the wrong point. If it matters to you and Morley so much please go back and find the relevant thread and quote all relevant posts. Personally I CBA. It was clear as day what Morley tried to do then back peddled claiming a different intent but in a nutshell:
1. Morley talked about his Twitter account and having “significant followers” in the context of being credible (and said something about having met hundreds of his followers).
2. Asked what significant was Morley said “over 10,000”.
3. It was then pointed out that this meant he had more followers then his often quoted/go to sources (at the time Gully Foyle and Dilip Shah were mentioned) and he started back peddling.
I'm not arsed going to find it.
What I can tell you though...
I wasn't confused. You've asked for the OP to provide clarity in this thread. Morley provided clarity in that thread, the problem lies in you not believing him and accusing him of back peddling instead.
You are right I am totally confused by your last paragraph?
The whole gaslighting point has nothing to do with this thread. Morley’s Twitter claims are historic but he brought it up claiming he was misrepresented when in fact he is the one misrepresenting the other thread. I addressed that. It wasn’t about this thread!
Fair enough. We shall just forget it, seeing as you're now confused.
I was never confused so I'd prefer you didn't 'misrepresent' from another thread that isn't about this thread "Nearly Morley said: "Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance. They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance. I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head." So I said: "Gaslighting again Morley!" Because that was not how the thread he is referring to went. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly.
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
They didn’t. Can’t remember Fab’s comment but Feisty got wrong end of stick and was a bit confused. You were totally and clearly linking credibility with number of twitter followers then desperately tried to back peddle.
I got the wrong end of the stick and was a bit confused?
Isn't this the same gaslighting that you're accusing others of?
No! On that occasion I recall you defending Morley but on the wrong point. If it matters to you and Morley so much please go back and find the relevant thread and quote all relevant posts. Personally I CBA. It was clear as day what Morley tried to do then back peddled claiming a different intent but in a nutshell:
1. Morley talked about his Twitter account and having “significant followers” in the context of being credible (and said something about having met hundreds of his followers).
2. Asked what significant was Morley said “over 10,000”.
3. It was then pointed out that this meant he had more followers then his often quoted/go to sources (at the time Gully Foyle and Dilip Shah were mentioned) and he started back peddling.
I'm not arsed going to find it.
What I can tell you though...
I wasn't confused. You've asked for the OP to provide clarity in this thread. Morley provided clarity in that thread, the problem lies in you not believing him and accusing him of back peddling instead.
You are right I am totally confused by your last paragraph?
The whole gaslighting point has nothing to do with this thread. Morley’s Twitter claims are historic but he brought it up claiming he was misrepresented when in fact he is the one misrepresenting the other thread. I addressed that. It wasn’t about this thread!
Fair enough. We shall just forget it, seeing as you're now confused.
I was never confused so I'd prefer you didn't 'misrepresent' from another thread that isn't about this thread
Nearly
Morley said:
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
So I said:
Gaslighting again Morley!
Because that was not how the thread he is referring to went."Why are you changing the subject? You brought my supposed 'confusion' into it (before your gaslighting comment). I was never confused, I'm still not confused. As I said, I'd rather you not 'misrepresent' me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly.
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
They didn’t. Can’t remember Fab’s comment but Feisty got wrong end of stick and was a bit confused. You were totally and clearly linking credibility with number of twitter followers then desperately tried to back peddle.
I got the wrong end of the stick and was a bit confused?
Isn't this the same gaslighting that you're accusing others of?
No! On that occasion I recall you defending Morley but on the wrong point. If it matters to you and Morley so much please go back and find the relevant thread and quote all relevant posts. Personally I CBA. It was clear as day what Morley tried to do then back peddled claiming a different intent but in a nutshell:
1. Morley talked about his Twitter account and having “significant followers” in the context of being credible (and said something about having met hundreds of his followers).
2. Asked what significant was Morley said “over 10,000”.
3. It was then pointed out that this meant he had more followers then his often quoted/go to sources (at the time Gully Foyle and Dilip Shah were mentioned) and he started back peddling.
I'm not arsed going to find it.
What I can tell you though...
I wasn't confused. You've asked for the OP to provide clarity in this thread. Morley provided clarity in that thread, the problem lies in you not believing him and accusing him of back peddling instead.
You are right I am totally confused by your last paragraph?
The whole gaslighting point has nothing to do with this thread. Morley’s Twitter claims are historic but he brought it up claiming he was misrepresented when in fact he is the one misrepresenting the other thread. I addressed that. It wasn’t about this thread!
Fair enough. We shall just forget it, seeing as you're now confused.
I was never confused so I'd prefer you didn't 'misrepresent' from another thread that isn't about this thread
Nearly
Morley said:
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
So I said:
Gaslighting again Morley!
Because that was not how the thread he is referring to went.
Why are you changing the subject?
You brought my supposed 'confusion' into it (before your gaslighting comment). I was never confused, I'm still not confused.
As I said, I'd rather you not 'misrepresent' me."Not changing the subject (unless you are talking about something different to me?). Because Morley then said: "Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption." And I recall your defence of him being confused and missing the point being made IMO. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly.
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
They didn’t. Can’t remember Fab’s comment but Feisty got wrong end of stick and was a bit confused. You were totally and clearly linking credibility with number of twitter followers then desperately tried to back peddle.
I got the wrong end of the stick and was a bit confused?
Isn't this the same gaslighting that you're accusing others of?
No! On that occasion I recall you defending Morley but on the wrong point. If it matters to you and Morley so much please go back and find the relevant thread and quote all relevant posts. Personally I CBA. It was clear as day what Morley tried to do then back peddled claiming a different intent but in a nutshell:
1. Morley talked about his Twitter account and having “significant followers” in the context of being credible (and said something about having met hundreds of his followers).
2. Asked what significant was Morley said “over 10,000”.
3. It was then pointed out that this meant he had more followers then his often quoted/go to sources (at the time Gully Foyle and Dilip Shah were mentioned) and he started back peddling.
I'm not arsed going to find it.
What I can tell you though...
I wasn't confused. You've asked for the OP to provide clarity in this thread. Morley provided clarity in that thread, the problem lies in you not believing him and accusing him of back peddling instead.
You are right I am totally confused by your last paragraph?
The whole gaslighting point has nothing to do with this thread. Morley’s Twitter claims are historic but he brought it up claiming he was misrepresented when in fact he is the one misrepresenting the other thread. I addressed that. It wasn’t about this thread!
Fair enough. We shall just forget it, seeing as you're now confused.
I was never confused so I'd prefer you didn't 'misrepresent' from another thread that isn't about this thread
Nearly
Morley said:
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
So I said:
Gaslighting again Morley!
Because that was not how the thread he is referring to went.
Why are you changing the subject?
You brought my supposed 'confusion' into it (before your gaslighting comment). I was never confused, I'm still not confused.
As I said, I'd rather you not 'misrepresent' me.
Not changing the subject (unless you are talking about something different to me?).
Because Morley then said:
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
And I recall your defence of him being confused and missing the point being made IMO."How many times do I have to say I wasn't and still am not confused? You continuing to say that is 'misrepresenting' me at best and gaslighting at worst. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of Brexit had been a barnstorming success that had delivered upon all of the promises, does anyone thing that those responsible (and indeed their supporters) wouldn’t be banging their pots and pans at every opportunity to tell us how they were right? So, no. Remainers should continue to demand that those shysters deliver upon their promises or own their shit and accept that they were wrong. We all lost rights. We’re all worse off. And we shouldn’t meekly shrug and accept it. As I said, tit for tat. I thought you were Fun Fella? I’m lots of fun. I just also happen to understand the importance of leaving the EU, why such an enormous decision was beyond the scope of a referendum, and why it’s important that those who undertook the event are held to account for the damage they did
And you're gonna be the one to hold them to account on a swingers forum?
Maybe you are funnier than I thought
I had a very substantial twitter account until I was banned for calling someone a c-bomb (a corbynite, of all people )
There are other avenues out there than fabs, you might be interested to know
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were Morley
I’ve never asked how many follow Morley has, and not do I hold too much stock in it. I was living proof that with a decent amount of research and a big enough mouth, anyone can make it big-ish on social media.
The day Billy Bragg followed me I knew I’d made it
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
Gaslighting again Morley!
Describing events as they unfolded.
You aren’t you are misrepresenting what happened and was said but hey ho! At this point you usually call people liars! I won’t because it is silly.
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
They didn’t. Can’t remember Fab’s comment but Feisty got wrong end of stick and was a bit confused. You were totally and clearly linking credibility with number of twitter followers then desperately tried to back peddle.
I got the wrong end of the stick and was a bit confused?
Isn't this the same gaslighting that you're accusing others of?
No! On that occasion I recall you defending Morley but on the wrong point. If it matters to you and Morley so much please go back and find the relevant thread and quote all relevant posts. Personally I CBA. It was clear as day what Morley tried to do then back peddled claiming a different intent but in a nutshell:
1. Morley talked about his Twitter account and having “significant followers” in the context of being credible (and said something about having met hundreds of his followers).
2. Asked what significant was Morley said “over 10,000”.
3. It was then pointed out that this meant he had more followers then his often quoted/go to sources (at the time Gully Foyle and Dilip Shah were mentioned) and he started back peddling.
I'm not arsed going to find it.
What I can tell you though...
I wasn't confused. You've asked for the OP to provide clarity in this thread. Morley provided clarity in that thread, the problem lies in you not believing him and accusing him of back peddling instead.
You are right I am totally confused by your last paragraph?
The whole gaslighting point has nothing to do with this thread. Morley’s Twitter claims are historic but he brought it up claiming he was misrepresented when in fact he is the one misrepresenting the other thread. I addressed that. It wasn’t about this thread!
Fair enough. We shall just forget it, seeing as you're now confused.
I was never confused so I'd prefer you didn't 'misrepresent' from another thread that isn't about this thread
Nearly
Morley said:
Neither do I. I merely pointed out to a certain individual I tend to tweet and just drop in here time to time to correct ignorance.
They seemed to take.me saying how many followers I said I had after they asked as me declaring it as a authoritative stance.
I never knew why. But they made that assumption in their head.
So I said:
Gaslighting again Morley!
Because that was not how the thread he is referring to went.
Why are you changing the subject?
You brought my supposed 'confusion' into it (before your gaslighting comment). I was never confused, I'm still not confused.
As I said, I'd rather you not 'misrepresent' me.
Not changing the subject (unless you are talking about something different to me?).
Because Morley then said:
Fab and feisty also corrected your mistaken assumption.
And I recall your defence of him being confused and missing the point being made IMO.
How many times do I have to say I wasn't and still am not confused?
You continuing to say that is 'misrepresenting' me at best and gaslighting at worst."Ok you weren’t confused but your point was | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the subject of the referendum being advisory and the government did not have to follow the result. In theory then, if the result had been to remain, could the government have had ignored this result and left anyway? I know the official government position was to remain and its unlikely they would have done this, but in theory if they had ignored a remain decision in the referendum, would that be OK?" Government no. Parliament, yes - leave or remain could only have been decided by parliament. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the subject of the referendum being advisory and the government did not have to follow the result. In theory then, if the result had been to remain, could the government have had ignored this result and left anyway? I know the official government position was to remain and its unlikely they would have done this, but in theory if they had ignored a remain decision in the referendum, would that be OK? Government no. Parliament, yes - leave or remain could only have been decided by parliament." Yep and they ballsed it up Royally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I just request that if anyone wishes to discuss things on forum topics that they restrict it to posts on the forum and not by messages. Thank you" Agreed! It is weird how/why people do that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I just request that if anyone wishes to discuss things on forum topics that they restrict it to posts on the forum and not by messages. Thank you Agreed! It is weird how/why people do that." It's usually people who want to give you abuse, or people who have been banned from the forums. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I just request that if anyone wishes to discuss things on forum topics that they restrict it to posts on the forum and not by messages. Thank you Agreed! It is weird how/why people do that. It's usually people who want to give you abuse, or people who have been banned from the forums." Yeah abuse then block so you can’t reply! Soooo brave! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I just request that if anyone wishes to discuss things on forum topics that they restrict it to posts on the forum and not by messages. Thank you Agreed! It is weird how/why people do that. It's usually people who want to give you abuse, or people who have been banned from the forums. Yeah abuse then block so you can’t reply! Soooo brave!" I find they normally leave it open for a little while before blocking when it gets too much for them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I just request that if anyone wishes to discuss things on forum topics that they restrict it to posts on the forum and not by messages. Thank you Agreed! It is weird how/why people do that. It's usually people who want to give you abuse, or people who have been banned from the forums. Yeah abuse then block so you can’t reply! Soooo brave! I find they normally leave it open for a little while before blocking when it gets too much for them "I never get that far. I just auto delete. If someone wants to say something to me in relation to my forum posts then say it in the forum. If they are banned then there must be a reason - usually the manner in which they engage people (rude)! Differences of opinion are a good thing. Robust discussion is a good thing. I also thing a bit of banter is a good thing (though it can go too far and hard to know where to draw the line for different people). But outright rude or offensive...fuck off! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Theres no U.S.A deal however we have a trade surplus with them without a deal so why would we need one" Well it was deemed important enough for the govt to commence negotiations in 2020. And even to laud it as ‘the first major, wholly new agreement pursued by a post-Brexit UK’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I just request that if anyone wishes to discuss things on forum topics that they restrict it to posts on the forum and not by messages. Thank you Agreed! It is weird how/why people do that. It's usually people who want to give you abuse, or people who have been banned from the forums. Yeah abuse then block so you can’t reply! Soooo brave! I find they normally leave it open for a little while before blocking when it gets too much for them
I never get that far. I just auto delete. If someone wants to say something to me in relation to my forum posts then say it in the forum. If they are banned then there must be a reason - usually the manner in which they engage people (rude)!
Differences of opinion are a good thing. Robust discussion is a good thing. I also thing a bit of banter is a good thing (though it can go too far and hard to know where to draw the line for different people). But outright rude or offensive...fuck off!"I like yr style | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still awaiting the news of The USA deal " I dont know know why? No one in a year official capacity said there'd be one | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also when so called Economists say CPTPP will only bring 0.08% growth in 10 years or whatever I dont get why people are so quick to believe that and not question on how that conclusion been made. I'm I meant to believe that it wont be higher if companies don't actually utilise the trade and also are they saying the figure of 0.08% won't be much higher if new countries were to join CPTPP in 10 years which I'm sure there will be. I take the 0.08% figure with a pinch of salt" Don’t take away peoples simple pleasures, moaning about everything they have little understanding of other than the headline | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also when so called Economists say CPTPP will only bring 0.08% growth in 10 years or whatever I dont get why people are so quick to believe that and not question on how that conclusion been made. I'm I meant to believe that it wont be higher if companies don't actually utilise the trade and also are they saying the figure of 0.08% won't be much higher if new countries were to join CPTPP in 10 years which I'm sure there will be. I take the 0.08% figure with a pinch of salt" It's no longer 0.08% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also when so called Economists say CPTPP will only bring 0.08% growth in 10 years or whatever I dont get why people are so quick to believe that and not question on how that conclusion been made. I'm I meant to believe that it wont be higher if companies don't actually utilise the trade and also are they saying the figure of 0.08% won't be much higher if new countries were to join CPTPP in 10 years which I'm sure there will be. I take the 0.08% figure with a pinch of salt" 0.08 used 2014 data on trade and prices and didn't include all current cptpp member It's now 0.09 of gdp in 2021. Again this doesn't include any new members until 2040 And again a static forecast. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also when so called Economists say CPTPP will only bring 0.08% growth in 10 years or whatever I dont get why people are so quick to believe that and not question on how that conclusion been made. I'm I meant to believe that it wont be higher if companies don't actually utilise the trade and also are they saying the figure of 0.08% won't be much higher if new countries were to join CPTPP in 10 years which I'm sure there will be. I take the 0.08% figure with a pinch of salt Don’t take away peoples simple pleasures, moaning about everything they have little understanding of other than the headline "It's our joy laughing at the copium they type when inevitably things improve no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also when so called Economists say CPTPP will only bring 0.08% growth in 10 years or whatever I dont get why people are so quick to believe that and not question on how that conclusion been made. I'm I meant to believe that it wont be higher if companies don't actually utilise the trade and also are they saying the figure of 0.08% won't be much higher if new countries were to join CPTPP in 10 years which I'm sure there will be. I take the 0.08% figure with a pinch of salt Don’t take away peoples simple pleasures, moaning about everything they have little understanding of other than the headline
It's our joy laughing at the copium they type when inevitably things improve no?"Very true | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Heirs to Blair if sunak passes the baton to Smarmer next year it is game over. We change as a society or we will fall it is that simple." How do we change as a society? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting view of the deal from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health The UK has joined a trade bloc where food, farming and environmental standards are lower than our own. This raises real concerns about the impact on consumer health and farm businesses in the UK,” said Orla Delargy, Head of Public Affairs at Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming. The agreement could introduce food imports containing pesticides currently banned in the UK and poses a unique challenge from an animal welfare perspective as there are no explicit references to animal welfare standards in the trade bloc’s formal condition. “Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here... Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” David Bowles, Head of Public Affairs, RSPCA said it “is another potential nail in the coffin for animal welfare standards back home. Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here, such as sow stalls and battery cages for laying hens. Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” The British Egg Industry Council (BEIC) also expressed concerns, particularly surrounding imports from Mexico, which uses conventional cages banned in the UK in 2012. Mark Williams, Chief Executive said: “Such imports would undercut our own egg producers who operate to high standards of animal welfare. To create a situation where egg products, which would be illegal to produce here, are imported and unknowingly purchased by consumers in the form of finished food products is unforgivable.” Ciaran Donaghy, Senior Policy and Public Affairs Executive, CIEH: “As was the case with the various trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, it appears as though the government have sacrificed standards for the sake of striking a deal. Public health and environmental protection are not pawns to be played with during diplomatic negotiations. Once again, we would impress the need for the UK to maintain or enhance standards during trade negotiations for the sake of public health.” Is this really what some refer to as progress? Oh and don’t forget the palm oil to help with a bit of deforestation. What a depressing direction we are taking as a nation. A deal at any cost? " Like with other industries the farmers here will be forced to join the race to the bottom or go out of business. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting view of the deal from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health The UK has joined a trade bloc where food, farming and environmental standards are lower than our own. This raises real concerns about the impact on consumer health and farm businesses in the UK,” said Orla Delargy, Head of Public Affairs at Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming. The agreement could introduce food imports containing pesticides currently banned in the UK and poses a unique challenge from an animal welfare perspective as there are no explicit references to animal welfare standards in the trade bloc’s formal condition. “Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here... Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” David Bowles, Head of Public Affairs, RSPCA said it “is another potential nail in the coffin for animal welfare standards back home. Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here, such as sow stalls and battery cages for laying hens. Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” The British Egg Industry Council (BEIC) also expressed concerns, particularly surrounding imports from Mexico, which uses conventional cages banned in the UK in 2012. Mark Williams, Chief Executive said: “Such imports would undercut our own egg producers who operate to high standards of animal welfare. To create a situation where egg products, which would be illegal to produce here, are imported and unknowingly purchased by consumers in the form of finished food products is unforgivable.” Ciaran Donaghy, Senior Policy and Public Affairs Executive, CIEH: “As was the case with the various trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, it appears as though the government have sacrificed standards for the sake of striking a deal. Public health and environmental protection are not pawns to be played with during diplomatic negotiations. Once again, we would impress the need for the UK to maintain or enhance standards during trade negotiations for the sake of public health.” Is this really what some refer to as progress? Oh and don’t forget the palm oil to help with a bit of deforestation. What a depressing direction we are taking as a nation. A deal at any cost? Like with other industries the farmers here will be forced to join the race to the bottom or go out of business. " And who owns the farm lands of America and who has the seed vaults. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting view of the deal from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health The UK has joined a trade bloc where food, farming and environmental standards are lower than our own. This raises real concerns about the impact on consumer health and farm businesses in the UK,” said Orla Delargy, Head of Public Affairs at Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming. The agreement could introduce food imports containing pesticides currently banned in the UK and poses a unique challenge from an animal welfare perspective as there are no explicit references to animal welfare standards in the trade bloc’s formal condition. “Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here... Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” David Bowles, Head of Public Affairs, RSPCA said it “is another potential nail in the coffin for animal welfare standards back home. Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here, such as sow stalls and battery cages for laying hens. Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” The British Egg Industry Council (BEIC) also expressed concerns, particularly surrounding imports from Mexico, which uses conventional cages banned in the UK in 2012. Mark Williams, Chief Executive said: “Such imports would undercut our own egg producers who operate to high standards of animal welfare. To create a situation where egg products, which would be illegal to produce here, are imported and unknowingly purchased by consumers in the form of finished food products is unforgivable.” Ciaran Donaghy, Senior Policy and Public Affairs Executive, CIEH: “As was the case with the various trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, it appears as though the government have sacrificed standards for the sake of striking a deal. Public health and environmental protection are not pawns to be played with during diplomatic negotiations. Once again, we would impress the need for the UK to maintain or enhance standards during trade negotiations for the sake of public health.” Is this really what some refer to as progress? Oh and don’t forget the palm oil to help with a bit of deforestation. What a depressing direction we are taking as a nation. A deal at any cost? " If I understand the conversations here previously and the bit I read seem to confirm that all food coming in from the places you mention must meet British standards. It had been a concern with the Australian, NZ and CPTPP deals before they were actually concluded. It turns out that nothing of the sort is happening. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting view of the deal from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health The UK has joined a trade bloc where food, farming and environmental standards are lower than our own. This raises real concerns about the impact on consumer health and farm businesses in the UK,” said Orla Delargy, Head of Public Affairs at Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming. The agreement could introduce food imports containing pesticides currently banned in the UK and poses a unique challenge from an animal welfare perspective as there are no explicit references to animal welfare standards in the trade bloc’s formal condition. “Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here... Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” David Bowles, Head of Public Affairs, RSPCA said it “is another potential nail in the coffin for animal welfare standards back home. Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here, such as sow stalls and battery cages for laying hens. Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” The British Egg Industry Council (BEIC) also expressed concerns, particularly surrounding imports from Mexico, which uses conventional cages banned in the UK in 2012. Mark Williams, Chief Executive said: “Such imports would undercut our own egg producers who operate to high standards of animal welfare. To create a situation where egg products, which would be illegal to produce here, are imported and unknowingly purchased by consumers in the form of finished food products is unforgivable.” Ciaran Donaghy, Senior Policy and Public Affairs Executive, CIEH: “As was the case with the various trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, it appears as though the government have sacrificed standards for the sake of striking a deal. Public health and environmental protection are not pawns to be played with during diplomatic negotiations. Once again, we would impress the need for the UK to maintain or enhance standards during trade negotiations for the sake of public health.” Is this really what some refer to as progress? Oh and don’t forget the palm oil to help with a bit of deforestation. What a depressing direction we are taking as a nation. A deal at any cost? Like with other industries the farmers here will be forced to join the race to the bottom or go out of business. And who owns the farm lands of America and who has the seed vaults." Who does? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting view of the deal from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health The UK has joined a trade bloc where food, farming and environmental standards are lower than our own. This raises real concerns about the impact on consumer health and farm businesses in the UK,” said Orla Delargy, Head of Public Affairs at Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming. The agreement could introduce food imports containing pesticides currently banned in the UK and poses a unique challenge from an animal welfare perspective as there are no explicit references to animal welfare standards in the trade bloc’s formal condition. “Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here... Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” David Bowles, Head of Public Affairs, RSPCA said it “is another potential nail in the coffin for animal welfare standards back home. Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here, such as sow stalls and battery cages for laying hens. Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” The British Egg Industry Council (BEIC) also expressed concerns, particularly surrounding imports from Mexico, which uses conventional cages banned in the UK in 2012. Mark Williams, Chief Executive said: “Such imports would undercut our own egg producers who operate to high standards of animal welfare. To create a situation where egg products, which would be illegal to produce here, are imported and unknowingly purchased by consumers in the form of finished food products is unforgivable.” Ciaran Donaghy, Senior Policy and Public Affairs Executive, CIEH: “As was the case with the various trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, it appears as though the government have sacrificed standards for the sake of striking a deal. Public health and environmental protection are not pawns to be played with during diplomatic negotiations. Once again, we would impress the need for the UK to maintain or enhance standards during trade negotiations for the sake of public health.” Is this really what some refer to as progress? Oh and don’t forget the palm oil to help with a bit of deforestation. What a depressing direction we are taking as a nation. A deal at any cost? " This has already been dealt with in multiple threads. And is dealt with within cptpp itself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting view of the deal from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health The UK has joined a trade bloc where food, farming and environmental standards are lower than our own. This raises real concerns about the impact on consumer health and farm businesses in the UK,” said Orla Delargy, Head of Public Affairs at Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming. The agreement could introduce food imports containing pesticides currently banned in the UK and poses a unique challenge from an animal welfare perspective as there are no explicit references to animal welfare standards in the trade bloc’s formal condition. “Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here... Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” David Bowles, Head of Public Affairs, RSPCA said it “is another potential nail in the coffin for animal welfare standards back home. Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here, such as sow stalls and battery cages for laying hens. Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” The British Egg Industry Council (BEIC) also expressed concerns, particularly surrounding imports from Mexico, which uses conventional cages banned in the UK in 2012. Mark Williams, Chief Executive said: “Such imports would undercut our own egg producers who operate to high standards of animal welfare. To create a situation where egg products, which would be illegal to produce here, are imported and unknowingly purchased by consumers in the form of finished food products is unforgivable.” Ciaran Donaghy, Senior Policy and Public Affairs Executive, CIEH: “As was the case with the various trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, it appears as though the government have sacrificed standards for the sake of striking a deal. Public health and environmental protection are not pawns to be played with during diplomatic negotiations. Once again, we would impress the need for the UK to maintain or enhance standards during trade negotiations for the sake of public health.” Is this really what some refer to as progress? Oh and don’t forget the palm oil to help with a bit of deforestation. What a depressing direction we are taking as a nation. A deal at any cost? Like with other industries the farmers here will be forced to join the race to the bottom or go out of business. " Sorry but no. There is a lost of approves exporters to thr UK which meet our standard requirements if you don't meet them. You don't export to the uk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting view of the deal from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health The UK has joined a trade bloc where food, farming and environmental standards are lower than our own. This raises real concerns about the impact on consumer health and farm businesses in the UK,” said Orla Delargy, Head of Public Affairs at Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming. The agreement could introduce food imports containing pesticides currently banned in the UK and poses a unique challenge from an animal welfare perspective as there are no explicit references to animal welfare standards in the trade bloc’s formal condition. “Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here... Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” David Bowles, Head of Public Affairs, RSPCA said it “is another potential nail in the coffin for animal welfare standards back home. Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here, such as sow stalls and battery cages for laying hens. Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” The British Egg Industry Council (BEIC) also expressed concerns, particularly surrounding imports from Mexico, which uses conventional cages banned in the UK in 2012. Mark Williams, Chief Executive said: “Such imports would undercut our own egg producers who operate to high standards of animal welfare. To create a situation where egg products, which would be illegal to produce here, are imported and unknowingly purchased by consumers in the form of finished food products is unforgivable.” Ciaran Donaghy, Senior Policy and Public Affairs Executive, CIEH: “As was the case with the various trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, it appears as though the government have sacrificed standards for the sake of striking a deal. Public health and environmental protection are not pawns to be played with during diplomatic negotiations. Once again, we would impress the need for the UK to maintain or enhance standards during trade negotiations for the sake of public health.” Is this really what some refer to as progress? Oh and don’t forget the palm oil to help with a bit of deforestation. What a depressing direction we are taking as a nation. A deal at any cost? Like with other industries the farmers here will be forced to join the race to the bottom or go out of business. Sorry but no. There is a lost of approves exporters to thr UK which meet our standard requirements if you don't meet them. You don't export to the uk. " Ministers have the power to approve imports of lower standards without parliamentary approval, after rejecting a lords bill in 2021. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting view of the deal from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health The UK has joined a trade bloc where food, farming and environmental standards are lower than our own. This raises real concerns about the impact on consumer health and farm businesses in the UK,” said Orla Delargy, Head of Public Affairs at Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming. The agreement could introduce food imports containing pesticides currently banned in the UK and poses a unique challenge from an animal welfare perspective as there are no explicit references to animal welfare standards in the trade bloc’s formal condition. “Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here... Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” David Bowles, Head of Public Affairs, RSPCA said it “is another potential nail in the coffin for animal welfare standards back home. Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here, such as sow stalls and battery cages for laying hens. Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” The British Egg Industry Council (BEIC) also expressed concerns, particularly surrounding imports from Mexico, which uses conventional cages banned in the UK in 2012. Mark Williams, Chief Executive said: “Such imports would undercut our own egg producers who operate to high standards of animal welfare. To create a situation where egg products, which would be illegal to produce here, are imported and unknowingly purchased by consumers in the form of finished food products is unforgivable.” Ciaran Donaghy, Senior Policy and Public Affairs Executive, CIEH: “As was the case with the various trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, it appears as though the government have sacrificed standards for the sake of striking a deal. Public health and environmental protection are not pawns to be played with during diplomatic negotiations. Once again, we would impress the need for the UK to maintain or enhance standards during trade negotiations for the sake of public health.” Is this really what some refer to as progress? Oh and don’t forget the palm oil to help with a bit of deforestation. What a depressing direction we are taking as a nation. A deal at any cost? Like with other industries the farmers here will be forced to join the race to the bottom or go out of business. Sorry but no. There is a lost of approves exporters to thr UK which meet our standard requirements if you don't meet them. You don't export to the uk. Ministers have the power to approve imports of lower standards without parliamentary approval, after rejecting a lords bill in 2021." This was a discussion on a Lord amendment seeking to get this written into trade deals and fkr future scrutiny. The government refuted thatbthis was the case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting view of the deal from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health The UK has joined a trade bloc where food, farming and environmental standards are lower than our own. This raises real concerns about the impact on consumer health and farm businesses in the UK,” said Orla Delargy, Head of Public Affairs at Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming. The agreement could introduce food imports containing pesticides currently banned in the UK and poses a unique challenge from an animal welfare perspective as there are no explicit references to animal welfare standards in the trade bloc’s formal condition. “Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here... Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” David Bowles, Head of Public Affairs, RSPCA said it “is another potential nail in the coffin for animal welfare standards back home. Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here, such as sow stalls and battery cages for laying hens. Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” The British Egg Industry Council (BEIC) also expressed concerns, particularly surrounding imports from Mexico, which uses conventional cages banned in the UK in 2012. Mark Williams, Chief Executive said: “Such imports would undercut our own egg producers who operate to high standards of animal welfare. To create a situation where egg products, which would be illegal to produce here, are imported and unknowingly purchased by consumers in the form of finished food products is unforgivable.” Ciaran Donaghy, Senior Policy and Public Affairs Executive, CIEH: “As was the case with the various trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, it appears as though the government have sacrificed standards for the sake of striking a deal. Public health and environmental protection are not pawns to be played with during diplomatic negotiations. Once again, we would impress the need for the UK to maintain or enhance standards during trade negotiations for the sake of public health.” Is this really what some refer to as progress? Oh and don’t forget the palm oil to help with a bit of deforestation. What a depressing direction we are taking as a nation. A deal at any cost? Like with other industries the farmers here will be forced to join the race to the bottom or go out of business. Sorry but no. There is a lost of approves exporters to thr UK which meet our standard requirements if you don't meet them. You don't export to the uk. Ministers have the power to approve imports of lower standards without parliamentary approval, after rejecting a lords bill in 2021. This was a discussion on a Lord amendment seeking to get this written into trade deals and fkr future scrutiny. The government refuted thatbthis was the case. " You still believe in the government...that's a joke right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It should come as no surprise when we start accepting lower standard goods and produce list-Brexit. Brexit was (in part at least) about regulatory divergence - and since the EU regs were always minimums, there was never anything to stop us having higher standards as a member. So if we want regularity divergence, guess which way things are going to go?…." We discussed gold plating before we had higher standards and still do. But im e.u we had to accept lower. I'm not sure why you think we are accepting lower. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It should come as no surprise when we start accepting lower standard goods and produce list-Brexit. Brexit was (in part at least) about regulatory divergence - and since the EU regs were always minimums, there was never anything to stop us having higher standards as a member. So if we want regularity divergence, guess which way things are going to go?…. We discussed gold plating before we had higher standards and still do. But im e.u we had to accept lower. I'm not sure why you think we are accepting lower." Because I’m familiar with conservatives party ideals. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It should come as no surprise when we start accepting lower standard goods and produce list-Brexit. Brexit was (in part at least) about regulatory divergence - and since the EU regs were always minimums, there was never anything to stop us having higher standards as a member. So if we want regularity divergence, guess which way things are going to go?…. We discussed gold plating before we had higher standards and still do. But im e.u we had to accept lower. I'm not sure why you think we are accepting lower." What happened with bee-killing pesticides earlier this year, for example? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It should come as no surprise when we start accepting lower standard goods and produce list-Brexit. Brexit was (in part at least) about regulatory divergence - and since the EU regs were always minimums, there was never anything to stop us having higher standards as a member. So if we want regularity divergence, guess which way things are going to go?…. We discussed gold plating before we had higher standards and still do. But im e.u we had to accept lower. I'm not sure why you think we are accepting lower. Because I’m familiar with conservatives party ideals." So we've not changed anything yet..and under the conservatives we've improved standards....Good to know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It should come as no surprise when we start accepting lower standard goods and produce list-Brexit. Brexit was (in part at least) about regulatory divergence - and since the EU regs were always minimums, there was never anything to stop us having higher standards as a member. So if we want regularity divergence, guess which way things are going to go?…. We discussed gold plating before we had higher standards and still do. But im e.u we had to accept lower. I'm not sure why you think we are accepting lower. What happened with bee-killing pesticides earlier this year, for example? " I'm not sure what this has to do with imports. But the e.u also allowed temporary lifting in 2021 and 2022 This has subsequently stopped. I dont get your point? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It should come as no surprise when we start accepting lower standard goods and produce list-Brexit. Brexit was (in part at least) about regulatory divergence - and since the EU regs were always minimums, there was never anything to stop us having higher standards as a member. So if we want regularity divergence, guess which way things are going to go?…. We discussed gold plating before we had higher standards and still do. But im e.u we had to accept lower. I'm not sure why you think we are accepting lower. What happened with bee-killing pesticides earlier this year, for example? I'm not sure what this has to do with imports. But the e.u also allowed temporary lifting in 2021 and 2022 This has subsequently stopped. I dont get your point?" The point is about overall regulatory standards, as I’m sure you’re aware. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It should come as no surprise when we start accepting lower standard goods and produce list-Brexit. Brexit was (in part at least) about regulatory divergence - and since the EU regs were always minimums, there was never anything to stop us having higher standards as a member. So if we want regularity divergence, guess which way things are going to go?…. We discussed gold plating before we had higher standards and still do. But im e.u we had to accept lower. I'm not sure why you think we are accepting lower. What happened with bee-killing pesticides earlier this year, for example? I'm not sure what this has to do with imports. But the e.u also allowed temporary lifting in 2021 and 2022 This has subsequently stopped. I dont get your point? The point is about overall regulatory standards, as I’m sure you’re aware. " .temporary grants to protect production aren't lowering of the standards going forward. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It should come as no surprise when we start accepting lower standard goods and produce list-Brexit. Brexit was (in part at least) about regulatory divergence - and since the EU regs were always minimums, there was never anything to stop us having higher standards as a member. So if we want regularity divergence, guess which way things are going to go?…. We discussed gold plating before we had higher standards and still do. But im e.u we had to accept lower. I'm not sure why you think we are accepting lower. What happened with bee-killing pesticides earlier this year, for example? I'm not sure what this has to do with imports. But the e.u also allowed temporary lifting in 2021 and 2022 This has subsequently stopped. I dont get your point? The point is about overall regulatory standards, as I’m sure you’re aware. .temporary grants to protect production aren't lowering of the standards going forward." Those ‘temporary’ actions have been repeated for three years in a row now, haven’t they? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It should come as no surprise when we start accepting lower standard goods and produce list-Brexit. Brexit was (in part at least) about regulatory divergence - and since the EU regs were always minimums, there was never anything to stop us having higher standards as a member. So if we want regularity divergence, guess which way things are going to go?…. We discussed gold plating before we had higher standards and still do. But im e.u we had to accept lower. I'm not sure why you think we are accepting lower. What happened with bee-killing pesticides earlier this year, for example? I'm not sure what this has to do with imports. But the e.u also allowed temporary lifting in 2021 and 2022 This has subsequently stopped. I dont get your point? The point is about overall regulatory standards, as I’m sure you’re aware. .temporary grants to protect production aren't lowering of the standards going forward. Those ‘temporary’ actions have been repeated for three years in a row now, haven’t they? " And 2 years. And in only some circumstances. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It should come as no surprise when we start accepting lower standard goods and produce list-Brexit. Brexit was (in part at least) about regulatory divergence - and since the EU regs were always minimums, there was never anything to stop us having higher standards as a member. So if we want regularity divergence, guess which way things are going to go?…. We discussed gold plating before we had higher standards and still do. But im e.u we had to accept lower. I'm not sure why you think we are accepting lower. What happened with bee-killing pesticides earlier this year, for example? I'm not sure what this has to do with imports. But the e.u also allowed temporary lifting in 2021 and 2022 This has subsequently stopped. I dont get your point? The point is about overall regulatory standards, as I’m sure you’re aware. .temporary grants to protect production aren't lowering of the standards going forward. Those ‘temporary’ actions have been repeated for three years in a row now, haven’t they? And 2 years. And in only some circumstances. " Why did the government ignore the data that reveals pollinators are more valuable than any potential loss incurred by not using pesticides, Morley? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It should come as no surprise when we start accepting lower standard goods and produce list-Brexit. Brexit was (in part at least) about regulatory divergence - and since the EU regs were always minimums, there was never anything to stop us having higher standards as a member. So if we want regularity divergence, guess which way things are going to go?…. We discussed gold plating before we had higher standards and still do. But im e.u we had to accept lower. I'm not sure why you think we are accepting lower. What happened with bee-killing pesticides earlier this year, for example? I'm not sure what this has to do with imports. But the e.u also allowed temporary lifting in 2021 and 2022 This has subsequently stopped. I dont get your point? The point is about overall regulatory standards, as I’m sure you’re aware. .temporary grants to protect production aren't lowering of the standards going forward. Those ‘temporary’ actions have been repeated for three years in a row now, haven’t they? And 2 years. And in only some circumstances. Why did the government ignore the data that reveals pollinators are more valuable than any potential loss incurred by not using pesticides, Morley? " Why did the e.u You are trying to move the debate onto n area which jas nothing to domwith lowering imports. I can understand why. As you have nothing to back up your stance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It should come as no surprise when we start accepting lower standard goods and produce list-Brexit. Brexit was (in part at least) about regulatory divergence - and since the EU regs were always minimums, there was never anything to stop us having higher standards as a member. So if we want regularity divergence, guess which way things are going to go?…. We discussed gold plating before we had higher standards and still do. But im e.u we had to accept lower. I'm not sure why you think we are accepting lower. What happened with bee-killing pesticides earlier this year, for example? I'm not sure what this has to do with imports. But the e.u also allowed temporary lifting in 2021 and 2022 This has subsequently stopped. I dont get your point? The point is about overall regulatory standards, as I’m sure you’re aware. .temporary grants to protect production aren't lowering of the standards going forward. Those ‘temporary’ actions have been repeated for three years in a row now, haven’t they? And 2 years. And in only some circumstances. Why did the government ignore the data that reveals pollinators are more valuable than any potential loss incurred by not using pesticides, Morley? Why did the e.u You are trying to move the debate onto n area which jas nothing to domwith lowering imports. I can understand why. As you have nothing to back up your stance." We were discussing standards. You claim that U.K govt have no interest in lowering standards You will be proven wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It should come as no surprise when we start accepting lower standard goods and produce list-Brexit. Brexit was (in part at least) about regulatory divergence - and since the EU regs were always minimums, there was never anything to stop us having higher standards as a member. So if we want regularity divergence, guess which way things are going to go?…. We discussed gold plating before we had higher standards and still do. But im e.u we had to accept lower. I'm not sure why you think we are accepting lower. What happened with bee-killing pesticides earlier this year, for example? I'm not sure what this has to do with imports. But the e.u also allowed temporary lifting in 2021 and 2022 This has subsequently stopped. I dont get your point? The point is about overall regulatory standards, as I’m sure you’re aware. .temporary grants to protect production aren't lowering of the standards going forward. Those ‘temporary’ actions have been repeated for three years in a row now, haven’t they? And 2 years. And in only some circumstances. Why did the government ignore the data that reveals pollinators are more valuable than any potential loss incurred by not using pesticides, Morley? Why did the e.u You are trying to move the debate onto n area which jas nothing to domwith lowering imports. I can understand why. As you have nothing to back up your stance. We were discussing standards. You claim that U.K govt have no interest in lowering standards You will be proven wrong. " OK I await us lowering some specific food standards. Any in mind you think we will? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It should come as no surprise when we start accepting lower standard goods and produce list-Brexit. Brexit was (in part at least) about regulatory divergence - and since the EU regs were always minimums, there was never anything to stop us having higher standards as a member. So if we want regularity divergence, guess which way things are going to go?…. We discussed gold plating before we had higher standards and still do. But im e.u we had to accept lower. I'm not sure why you think we are accepting lower. What happened with bee-killing pesticides earlier this year, for example? I'm not sure what this has to do with imports. But the e.u also allowed temporary lifting in 2021 and 2022 This has subsequently stopped. I dont get your point? The point is about overall regulatory standards, as I’m sure you’re aware. .temporary grants to protect production aren't lowering of the standards going forward. Those ‘temporary’ actions have been repeated for three years in a row now, haven’t they? And 2 years. And in only some circumstances. Why did the government ignore the data that reveals pollinators are more valuable than any potential loss incurred by not using pesticides, Morley? Why did the e.u You are trying to move the debate onto n area which jas nothing to domwith lowering imports. I can understand why. As you have nothing to back up your stance. We were discussing standards. You claim that U.K govt have no interest in lowering standards You will be proven wrong. OK I await us lowering some specific food standards. Any in mind you think we will?" As many as necessary. Watch this space. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regarding food standards (and upstream animal welfare and farming standards). 1. Assuming the UK maintains the same current standards then this is a non-issue for imports. 2. Similarly though for exporters there will be a challenge on product price point making inroads into these markets challenging. 3. If the UK was to lower standards then the argument often put forward by supporters of this is that consumers can decide on their priority (price vs quality vs standards etc). This however relies on clear labelling for retailers/consumers BUT presents problems in areas like catering (inc school meals, take aways etc) where the provider will be highly cost sensitive." Point 2. Each country already has the certified list of exporters. I think i described a few months earlier that. If some one grows or handles thr same livestock as us. It doesn't mean their costs are the same. And they should be able to import cheaper. For example because of the weather in newzealand and volcanic land. They ca often grow better crops ata faster rate. They also rear sheep with less costs. Take for example the uk. Our energy for production went up because of our reliance on gas. If you had a country last year who relied more on coal. They input costs would be far cheaper. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting view of the deal from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health The UK has joined a trade bloc where food, farming and environmental standards are lower than our own. This raises real concerns about the impact on consumer health and farm businesses in the UK,” said Orla Delargy, Head of Public Affairs at Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming. The agreement could introduce food imports containing pesticides currently banned in the UK and poses a unique challenge from an animal welfare perspective as there are no explicit references to animal welfare standards in the trade bloc’s formal condition. “Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here... Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” David Bowles, Head of Public Affairs, RSPCA said it “is another potential nail in the coffin for animal welfare standards back home. Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here, such as sow stalls and battery cages for laying hens. Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” The British Egg Industry Council (BEIC) also expressed concerns, particularly surrounding imports from Mexico, which uses conventional cages banned in the UK in 2012. Mark Williams, Chief Executive said: “Such imports would undercut our own egg producers who operate to high standards of animal welfare. To create a situation where egg products, which would be illegal to produce here, are imported and unknowingly purchased by consumers in the form of finished food products is unforgivable.” Ciaran Donaghy, Senior Policy and Public Affairs Executive, CIEH: “As was the case with the various trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, it appears as though the government have sacrificed standards for the sake of striking a deal. Public health and environmental protection are not pawns to be played with during diplomatic negotiations. Once again, we would impress the need for the UK to maintain or enhance standards during trade negotiations for the sake of public health.” Is this really what some refer to as progress? Oh and don’t forget the palm oil to help with a bit of deforestation. What a depressing direction we are taking as a nation. A deal at any cost? If I understand the conversations here previously and the bit I read seem to confirm that all food coming in from the places you mention must meet British standards. It had been a concern with the Australian, NZ and CPTPP deals before they were actually concluded. It turns out that nothing of the sort is happening. " Yes a swingers forum as opposed to the chartered institute. I’m not sure that’s a good bet.
Feel feee to read the Australian trade deal in detail . The words endeavour and work towards are used to describe how the Australian farmers will approach British standards. They have agreed not to drop their standards but not increase to ours. We also have no system to monitor the food production or a workable compliance enforcement agreement. . JRM confirmed this under questioning.
The Australians are laughing at how desperate we were.
The list of approved suppliers is provided by the Australian authorities. On meat bi products alone that’s just shy of 900 companies. I’m curious how this level of compliance is going to be checked? It’s form filling. Unlike U.K. farmers who are regularly audited.
There was no need to rush this deal other than for political expediency . It’s a mess for both farmers in the U.K. and our food standards. The only thing that is definitely banned is hormone treated meat. The worry here is again no monitoring, only a signed agreement from a country that uses the hormones widely. Australia can also apply to export said treated meats under a provision in WTO rules which this agreement clearly allows. That alright then.
We dealt with Australia before but under more detailed scrutiny and recourse to litigation and with limited volume.
Feel free to read the below link from people better qualified than me. It’s not good reading and exposes the abject failure of the government on this specific deal.
https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/7450288/168678_lessons-learnt-from-australia-trade-deal-core-standards-ciwf-wwf-and-others-march-2022.pdf
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regarding food standards (and upstream animal welfare and farming standards). 1. Assuming the UK maintains the same current standards then this is a non-issue for imports. 2. Similarly though for exporters there will be a challenge on product price point making inroads into these markets challenging. 3. If the UK was to lower standards then the argument often put forward by supporters of this is that consumers can decide on their priority (price vs quality vs standards etc). This however relies on clear labelling for retailers/consumers BUT presents problems in areas like catering (inc school meals, take aways etc) where the provider will be highly cost sensitive. Point 2. Each country already has the certified list of exporters. I think i described a few months earlier that. If some one grows or handles thr same livestock as us. It doesn't mean their costs are the same. And they should be able to import cheaper. For example because of the weather in newzealand and volcanic land. They ca often grow better crops ata faster rate. They also rear sheep with less costs. Take for example the uk. Our energy for production went up because of our reliance on gas. If you had a country last year who relied more on coal. They input costs would be far cheaper. " Yep all of that is true. So is the statement that lower standards also equals lower costs to produce. So the end game would look poor for UK producers who can’t compete unless they lower standards (as cannot change geography or energy reliance). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting view of the deal from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health The UK has joined a trade bloc where food, farming and environmental standards are lower than our own. This raises real concerns about the impact on consumer health and farm businesses in the UK,” said Orla Delargy, Head of Public Affairs at Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming. The agreement could introduce food imports containing pesticides currently banned in the UK and poses a unique challenge from an animal welfare perspective as there are no explicit references to animal welfare standards in the trade bloc’s formal condition. “Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here... Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” David Bowles, Head of Public Affairs, RSPCA said it “is another potential nail in the coffin for animal welfare standards back home. Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here, such as sow stalls and battery cages for laying hens. Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” The British Egg Industry Council (BEIC) also expressed concerns, particularly surrounding imports from Mexico, which uses conventional cages banned in the UK in 2012. Mark Williams, Chief Executive said: “Such imports would undercut our own egg producers who operate to high standards of animal welfare. To create a situation where egg products, which would be illegal to produce here, are imported and unknowingly purchased by consumers in the form of finished food products is unforgivable.” Ciaran Donaghy, Senior Policy and Public Affairs Executive, CIEH: “As was the case with the various trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, it appears as though the government have sacrificed standards for the sake of striking a deal. Public health and environmental protection are not pawns to be played with during diplomatic negotiations. Once again, we would impress the need for the UK to maintain or enhance standards during trade negotiations for the sake of public health.” Is this really what some refer to as progress? Oh and don’t forget the palm oil to help with a bit of deforestation. What a depressing direction we are taking as a nation. A deal at any cost? If I understand the conversations here previously and the bit I read seem to confirm that all food coming in from the places you mention must meet British standards. It had been a concern with the Australian, NZ and CPTPP deals before they were actually concluded. It turns out that nothing of the sort is happening. Yes a swingers forum as opposed to the chartered institute. I’m not sure that’s a good bet.
Feel feee to read the Australian trade deal in detail . The words endeavour and work towards are used to describe how the Australian farmers will approach British standards. They have agreed not to drop their standards but not increase to ours. We also have no system to monitor the food production or a workable compliance enforcement agreement. . JRM confirmed this under questioning.
The Australians are laughing at how desperate we were.
The list of approved suppliers is provided by the Australian authorities. On meat bi products alone that’s just shy of 900 companies. I’m curious how this level of compliance is going to be checked? It’s form filling. Unlike U.K. farmers who are regularly audited.
There was no need to rush this deal other than for political expediency . It’s a mess for both farmers in the U.K. and our food standards. The only thing that is definitely banned is hormone treated meat. The worry here is again no monitoring, only a signed agreement from a country that uses the hormones widely. Australia can also apply to export said treated meats under a provision in WTO rules which this agreement clearly allows. That alright then.
We dealt with Australia before but under more detailed scrutiny and recourse to litigation and with limited volume.
Feel free to read the below link from people better qualified than me. It’s not good reading and exposes the abject failure of the government on this specific deal.
https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/7450288/168678_lessons-learnt-from-australia-trade-deal-core-standards-ciwf-wwf-and-others-march-2022.pdf
"I think it's you that should probably read the deal. Your own cited source in its first few lines disagrees with you Although the UK is not required to change any of its food safety standards as a condition the Australia-UK agreement, the agreement commits UK and Australian regulatory authorities to work together to identify areas where their respective regulation could be deemed ‘equivalent’ and agrees a narrower basis for that regulation. What happens to UK food safety standards will depend on the UK, as the importing country is ultimately responsible for deciding what is equivalent" " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regarding food standards (and upstream animal welfare and farming standards). 1. Assuming the UK maintains the same current standards then this is a non-issue for imports. 2. Similarly though for exporters there will be a challenge on product price point making inroads into these markets challenging. 3. If the UK was to lower standards then the argument often put forward by supporters of this is that consumers can decide on their priority (price vs quality vs standards etc). This however relies on clear labelling for retailers/consumers BUT presents problems in areas like catering (inc school meals, take aways etc) where the provider will be highly cost sensitive. Point 2. Each country already has the certified list of exporters. I think i described a few months earlier that. If some one grows or handles thr same livestock as us. It doesn't mean their costs are the same. And they should be able to import cheaper. For example because of the weather in newzealand and volcanic land. They ca often grow better crops ata faster rate. They also rear sheep with less costs. Take for example the uk. Our energy for production went up because of our reliance on gas. If you had a country last year who relied more on coal. They input costs would be far cheaper. Yep all of that is true. So is the statement that lower standards also equals lower costs to produce. So the end game would look poor for UK producers who can’t compete unless they lower standards (as cannot change geography or energy reliance)." But they woukd still need to meet our standards of production. They may well have the advantage of growing crops and feeding animals cheaper But that's nit a lowering of standards. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting view of the deal from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health The UK has joined a trade bloc where food, farming and environmental standards are lower than our own. This raises real concerns about the impact on consumer health and farm businesses in the UK,” said Orla Delargy, Head of Public Affairs at Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming. The agreement could introduce food imports containing pesticides currently banned in the UK and poses a unique challenge from an animal welfare perspective as there are no explicit references to animal welfare standards in the trade bloc’s formal condition. “Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here... Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” David Bowles, Head of Public Affairs, RSPCA said it “is another potential nail in the coffin for animal welfare standards back home. Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here, such as sow stalls and battery cages for laying hens. Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” The British Egg Industry Council (BEIC) also expressed concerns, particularly surrounding imports from Mexico, which uses conventional cages banned in the UK in 2012. Mark Williams, Chief Executive said: “Such imports would undercut our own egg producers who operate to high standards of animal welfare. To create a situation where egg products, which would be illegal to produce here, are imported and unknowingly purchased by consumers in the form of finished food products is unforgivable.” Ciaran Donaghy, Senior Policy and Public Affairs Executive, CIEH: “As was the case with the various trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, it appears as though the government have sacrificed standards for the sake of striking a deal. Public health and environmental protection are not pawns to be played with during diplomatic negotiations. Once again, we would impress the need for the UK to maintain or enhance standards during trade negotiations for the sake of public health.” Is this really what some refer to as progress? Oh and don’t forget the palm oil to help with a bit of deforestation. What a depressing direction we are taking as a nation. A deal at any cost? If I understand the conversations here previously and the bit I read seem to confirm that all food coming in from the places you mention must meet British standards. It had been a concern with the Australian, NZ and CPTPP deals before they were actually concluded. It turns out that nothing of the sort is happening. Yes a swingers forum as opposed to the chartered institute. I’m not sure that’s a good bet.
Feel feee to read the Australian trade deal in detail . The words endeavour and work towards are used to describe how the Australian farmers will approach British standards. They have agreed not to drop their standards but not increase to ours. We also have no system to monitor the food production or a workable compliance enforcement agreement. . JRM confirmed this under questioning.
The Australians are laughing at how desperate we were.
The list of approved suppliers is provided by the Australian authorities. On meat bi products alone that’s just shy of 900 companies. I’m curious how this level of compliance is going to be checked? It’s form filling. Unlike U.K. farmers who are regularly audited.
There was no need to rush this deal other than for political expediency . It’s a mess for both farmers in the U.K. and our food standards. The only thing that is definitely banned is hormone treated meat. The worry here is again no monitoring, only a signed agreement from a country that uses the hormones widely. Australia can also apply to export said treated meats under a provision in WTO rules which this agreement clearly allows. That alright then.
We dealt with Australia before but under more detailed scrutiny and recourse to litigation and with limited volume.
Feel free to read the below link from people better qualified than me. It’s not good reading and exposes the abject failure of the government on this specific deal.
https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/7450288/168678_lessons-learnt-from-australia-trade-deal-core-standards-ciwf-wwf-and-others-march-2022.pdf
I think it's you that should probably read the deal.
Your own cited source in its first few lines disagrees with you
Although the UK is not required to change any of its food safety standards as a condition the
Australia-UK agreement, the agreement commits UK and Australian regulatory authorities to
work together to identify areas where their respective regulation could be deemed ‘equivalent’
and agrees a narrower basis for that regulation. What happens to UK food safety standards will
depend on the UK, as the importing country is ultimately responsible for deciding what is
equivalent"
""Firstly I didn’t say the U.K. was changing its own production standards. That’s the critical financial point for U.K. farmers. I have read the actual trade deal in full so the link was to aid the information on my views in the post not reproduce a copy of the deal . If you feel the organisations on the link are saying it’s a positive deal then that’s strange. Feel free to quote to all the section in the actual trade deal which states that the Australian producers must match U.K. standards and by which date. The actual words as I have previously stated in the agreement itself, are along the lines of work towards and endeavour or similar as it was a while ago when I read it. There is no recourse procedure if Australia doesn’t improve as the framework for such recourse does not exist. That’s a glaring omission in the deal . Your own words hint at the U.K. relaxing it’s rules to “narrow” regulation with Australia's for equivalence. I wonder if we will be narrowing up or down to reach said equivalence? My money is on down. The undeniable reality is if we are “working towards” the rules most certainly do not match by default! That’s something your response has confirmed. So imports will not match our standards from day one.No date is set for when they will. Just working towards. Also I’ll repeat based on the WTO rules Australia can use a legal opt out procedure to bypass our hormone bans. This is also mentioned in the link. Again that’s a crap a deal for our safeguards. JRM and Truss could not provide any details and non have been released since the deal was signed on monitoring the companies in Australia. If there’s no monitoring there’s no checking on imports as one frozen side of beef looks just like another to an import inspector at Thames Gateway. Processed products you’ve no chance. Truss and Boris rushed this through and it’s a shambles. Australia couldn’t believe their luck. The deal is poor. It risks harm to UK producers and undermines long term animal welfare standards we have developed over decades. I haven’t read the New Zealand or CPTPP deals so cannot really comment. I’m not optimistic based on the Great Australian deal. Now the sad bit. I won’t be playing any more immature Morley ping pong. Sadly you only try only to find narrow specific points that agree with your own views of the world, all while you blatantly choose to ignore much broader and valid information. For example that information in the reviews by reputable independent organisations which I posted a link to. So I won’t be responding again. I find your approach narrow and tiresome. I’ve had lots of good challenging debates on here over the years and I always would admit when I was losing on occasions to good balanced right wing debaters such as Costa. Unfortunately as in the Monty Python sketch you just seem to want to contradict, or shout people down and refuse to accept you recognise any other point of view by using avoidance and diversion. This is just my personal view of your approach and feel free to disagree as I don’t care to be honest. It’s my interpretation if you like. I’m not claiming it’s fact. It’s an anonymous forum on a swingers site of no importance to anything. The forums like the rest of the site are supposed to be fun. You can freely decide your own approach and here is my latest approach. . In the words of Dragons Den I’m out. Feel free to claim victory if it makes you happy as that’s a good thing. My own views are a little more considered. . Goodnight and I genuinely wish you well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting view of the deal from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health The UK has joined a trade bloc where food, farming and environmental standards are lower than our own. This raises real concerns about the impact on consumer health and farm businesses in the UK,” said Orla Delargy, Head of Public Affairs at Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming. The agreement could introduce food imports containing pesticides currently banned in the UK and poses a unique challenge from an animal welfare perspective as there are no explicit references to animal welfare standards in the trade bloc’s formal condition. “Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here... Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” David Bowles, Head of Public Affairs, RSPCA said it “is another potential nail in the coffin for animal welfare standards back home. Many CPTPP countries use methods of production which are illegal here, such as sow stalls and battery cages for laying hens. Worryingly, we now fear there will be nothing to stop those products being imported into the UK.” The British Egg Industry Council (BEIC) also expressed concerns, particularly surrounding imports from Mexico, which uses conventional cages banned in the UK in 2012. Mark Williams, Chief Executive said: “Such imports would undercut our own egg producers who operate to high standards of animal welfare. To create a situation where egg products, which would be illegal to produce here, are imported and unknowingly purchased by consumers in the form of finished food products is unforgivable.” Ciaran Donaghy, Senior Policy and Public Affairs Executive, CIEH: “As was the case with the various trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, it appears as though the government have sacrificed standards for the sake of striking a deal. Public health and environmental protection are not pawns to be played with during diplomatic negotiations. Once again, we would impress the need for the UK to maintain or enhance standards during trade negotiations for the sake of public health.” Is this really what some refer to as progress? Oh and don’t forget the palm oil to help with a bit of deforestation. What a depressing direction we are taking as a nation. A deal at any cost? If I understand the conversations here previously and the bit I read seem to confirm that all food coming in from the places you mention must meet British standards. It had been a concern with the Australian, NZ and CPTPP deals before they were actually concluded. It turns out that nothing of the sort is happening. Yes a swingers forum as opposed to the chartered institute. I’m not sure that’s a good bet.
Feel feee to read the Australian trade deal in detail . The words endeavour and work towards are used to describe how the Australian farmers will approach British standards. They have agreed not to drop their standards but not increase to ours. We also have no system to monitor the food production or a workable compliance enforcement agreement. . JRM confirmed this under questioning.
The Australians are laughing at how desperate we were.
The list of approved suppliers is provided by the Australian authorities. On meat bi products alone that’s just shy of 900 companies. I’m curious how this level of compliance is going to be checked? It’s form filling. Unlike U.K. farmers who are regularly audited.
There was no need to rush this deal other than for political expediency . It’s a mess for both farmers in the U.K. and our food standards. The only thing that is definitely banned is hormone treated meat. The worry here is again no monitoring, only a signed agreement from a country that uses the hormones widely. Australia can also apply to export said treated meats under a provision in WTO rules which this agreement clearly allows. That alright then.
We dealt with Australia before but under more detailed scrutiny and recourse to litigation and with limited volume.
Feel free to read the below link from people better qualified than me. It’s not good reading and exposes the abject failure of the government on this specific deal.
https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/7450288/168678_lessons-learnt-from-australia-trade-deal-core-standards-ciwf-wwf-and-others-march-2022.pdf
I think it's you that should probably read the deal.
Your own cited source in its first few lines disagrees with you
Although the UK is not required to change any of its food safety standards as a condition the
Australia-UK agreement, the agreement commits UK and Australian regulatory authorities to
work together to identify areas where their respective regulation could be deemed ‘equivalent’
and agrees a narrower basis for that regulation. What happens to UK food safety standards will
depend on the UK, as the importing country is ultimately responsible for deciding what is
equivalent"
"
Firstly I didn’t say the U.K. was changing its own production standards. That’s the critical financial point for U.K. farmers.
I have read the actual trade deal in full so the link was to aid the information on my views in the post not reproduce a copy of the deal . If you feel the organisations on the link are saying it’s a positive deal then that’s strange.
Feel free to quote to all the section in the actual trade deal which states that the Australian producers must match U.K. standards and by which date. The actual words as I have previously stated in the agreement itself, are along the lines of work towards and endeavour or similar as it was a while ago when I read it.
There is no recourse procedure if Australia doesn’t improve as the framework for such recourse does not exist. That’s a glaring omission in the deal .
Your own words hint at the U.K. relaxing it’s rules to “narrow” regulation with Australia's for equivalence. I wonder if we will be narrowing up or down to reach said equivalence? My money is on down. The undeniable reality is if we are “working towards” the rules most certainly do not match by default! That’s something your response has confirmed. So imports will not match our standards from day one.No date is set for when they will. Just working towards.
Also I’ll repeat based on the WTO rules Australia can use a legal opt out procedure to bypass our hormone bans. This is also mentioned in the link. Again that’s a crap a deal for our safeguards.
JRM and Truss could not provide any details and non have been released since the deal was signed on monitoring the companies in Australia. If there’s no monitoring there’s no checking on imports as one frozen side of beef looks just like another to an import inspector at Thames Gateway. Processed products you’ve no chance.
Truss and Boris rushed this through and it’s a shambles. Australia couldn’t believe their luck. The deal is poor. It risks harm to UK producers and undermines long term animal welfare standards we have developed over decades.
I haven’t read the New Zealand or CPTPP deals so cannot really comment. I’m not optimistic based on the Great Australian deal.
Now the sad bit.
I won’t be playing any more immature Morley ping pong. Sadly you only try only to find narrow specific points that agree with your own views of the world, all while you blatantly choose to ignore much broader and valid information. For example that information in the reviews by reputable independent organisations which I posted a link to. So I won’t be responding again. I find your approach narrow and tiresome. I’ve had lots of good challenging debates on here over the years and I always would admit when I was losing on occasions to good balanced right wing debaters such as Costa. Unfortunately as in the Monty Python sketch you just seem to want to contradict, or shout people down and refuse to accept you recognise any other point of view by using avoidance and diversion. This is just my personal view of your approach and feel free to disagree as I don’t care to be honest. It’s my interpretation if you like. I’m not claiming it’s fact.
It’s an anonymous forum on a swingers site of no importance to anything. The forums like the rest of the site are supposed to be fun. You can freely decide your own approach and here is my latest approach. . In the words of Dragons Den I’m out.
Feel free to claim victory if it makes you happy as that’s a good thing. My own views are a little more considered. .
Goodnight and I genuinely wish you well.
"Im not talking about uk production standards. I an talking about import standards. The trade deal makes no mention about future lowering import standards or conformity or anything else for that matter. The fact you beleive anything in it does highlights to me you haven't read it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regarding food standards (and upstream animal welfare and farming standards). 1. Assuming the UK maintains the same current standards then this is a non-issue for imports. 2. Similarly though for exporters there will be a challenge on product price point making inroads into these markets challenging. 3. If the UK was to lower standards then the argument often put forward by supporters of this is that consumers can decide on their priority (price vs quality vs standards etc). This however relies on clear labelling for retailers/consumers BUT presents problems in areas like catering (inc school meals, take aways etc) where the provider will be highly cost sensitive. Point 2. Each country already has the certified list of exporters. I think i described a few months earlier that. If some one grows or handles thr same livestock as us. It doesn't mean their costs are the same. And they should be able to import cheaper. For example because of the weather in newzealand and volcanic land. They ca often grow better crops ata faster rate. They also rear sheep with less costs. Take for example the uk. Our energy for production went up because of our reliance on gas. If you had a country last year who relied more on coal. They input costs would be far cheaper. Yep all of that is true. So is the statement that lower standards also equals lower costs to produce. So the end game would look poor for UK producers who can’t compete unless they lower standards (as cannot change geography or energy reliance). But they woukd still need to meet our standards of production. They may well have the advantage of growing crops and feeding animals cheaper But that's nit a lowering of standards." I didn’t say that was a lowering of standards. I said that if you combine lower standards with other (geographic) advantages then it is going to be hard for UK producers to compete on price. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regarding food standards (and upstream animal welfare and farming standards). 1. Assuming the UK maintains the same current standards then this is a non-issue for imports. 2. Similarly though for exporters there will be a challenge on product price point making inroads into these markets challenging. 3. If the UK was to lower standards then the argument often put forward by supporters of this is that consumers can decide on their priority (price vs quality vs standards etc). This however relies on clear labelling for retailers/consumers BUT presents problems in areas like catering (inc school meals, take aways etc) where the provider will be highly cost sensitive. Point 2. Each country already has the certified list of exporters. I think i described a few months earlier that. If some one grows or handles thr same livestock as us. It doesn't mean their costs are the same. And they should be able to import cheaper. For example because of the weather in newzealand and volcanic land. They ca often grow better crops ata faster rate. They also rear sheep with less costs. Take for example the uk. Our energy for production went up because of our reliance on gas. If you had a country last year who relied more on coal. They input costs would be far cheaper. Yep all of that is true. So is the statement that lower standards also equals lower costs to produce. So the end game would look poor for UK producers who can’t compete unless they lower standards (as cannot change geography or energy reliance). But they woukd still need to meet our standards of production. They may well have the advantage of growing crops and feeding animals cheaper But that's nit a lowering of standards. I didn’t say that was a lowering of standards. I said that if you combine lower standards with other (geographic) advantages then it is going to be hard for UK producers to compete on price." Cool. thank god the uk isn't lowering standards. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still awaiting the news of The USA deal I dont know know why? No one in a year official capacity said there'd be one " . ..... Still waiting because it was promised | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regarding food standards (and upstream animal welfare and farming standards). 1. Assuming the UK maintains the same current standards then this is a non-issue for imports. 2. Similarly though for exporters there will be a challenge on product price point making inroads into these markets challenging. 3. If the UK was to lower standards then the argument often put forward by supporters of this is that consumers can decide on their priority (price vs quality vs standards etc). This however relies on clear labelling for retailers/consumers BUT presents problems in areas like catering (inc school meals, take aways etc) where the provider will be highly cost sensitive. Point 2. Each country already has the certified list of exporters. I think i described a few months earlier that. If some one grows or handles thr same livestock as us. It doesn't mean their costs are the same. And they should be able to import cheaper. For example because of the weather in newzealand and volcanic land. They ca often grow better crops ata faster rate. They also rear sheep with less costs. Take for example the uk. Our energy for production went up because of our reliance on gas. If you had a country last year who relied more on coal. They input costs would be far cheaper. Yep all of that is true. So is the statement that lower standards also equals lower costs to produce. So the end game would look poor for UK producers who can’t compete unless they lower standards (as cannot change geography or energy reliance). But they woukd still need to meet our standards of production. They may well have the advantage of growing crops and feeding animals cheaper But that's nit a lowering of standards. I didn’t say that was a lowering of standards. I said that if you combine lower standards with other (geographic) advantages then it is going to be hard for UK producers to compete on price. Cool. thank god the uk isn't lowering standards." I hope you are right. Doesn’t address the fact that our producers won’t be able to compete on price when exporting so will see little benefit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
