FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Reasons for voting for brexit
Reasons for voting for brexit
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had to continue this thread as I think its funny how some people think , everyone was entitled to an opinion and vote on this matter and their is absolutely no reason to try and belittle people because of their reasons for voting leave, and to those that think leave voters didn't understand maybe you need to have a good hard look at yourselves. Just very sad how it has to be a personal attack on p just because of their reasons for voting leave " Whatever you think, and however you voted, the truths is we won't know if Brexit can be measured a success or failure for years. In the short term, there were always going to challenges as we adjusted. In the long term who knows what might happen. The EU might implode and the UK prosper, or vice versa, or we might rejoin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had to continue this thread as I think its funny how some people think , everyone was entitled to an opinion and vote on this matter and their is absolutely no reason to try and belittle people because of their reasons for voting leave, and to those that think leave voters didn't understand maybe you need to have a good hard look at yourselves. Just very sad how it has to be a personal attack on p just because of their reasons for voting leave Whatever you think, and however you voted, the truths is we won't know if Brexit can be measured a success or failure for years. In the short term, there were always going to challenges as we adjusted. In the long term who knows what might happen. The EU might implode and the UK prosper, or vice versa, or we might rejoin." If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right. Because it’s damaged the economy, removed rights for no benefit, we instead have to wait ‘for years’ to make a judgement. Brexit was and is a crock. We’re now in damage limitation mode, and it will take years to recover even to where we were in 2016. It’s failed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had to continue this thread as I think its funny how some people think , everyone was entitled to an opinion and vote on this matter and their is absolutely no reason to try and belittle people because of their reasons for voting leave, and to those that think leave voters didn't understand maybe you need to have a good hard look at yourselves. Just very sad how it has to be a personal attack on p just because of their reasons for voting leave " "To those that think leave voters didn't understand maybe you need to have a good hard look at yourselves" Ther was a thread a couple of days about this. Is this what you're talking about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had to continue this thread as I think its funny how some people think , everyone was entitled to an opinion and vote on this matter and their is absolutely no reason to try and belittle people because of their reasons for voting leave, and to those that think leave voters didn't understand maybe you need to have a good hard look at yourselves. Just very sad how it has to be a personal attack on p just because of their reasons for voting leave Whatever you think, and however you voted, the truths is we won't know if Brexit can be measured a success or failure for years. In the short term, there were always going to challenges as we adjusted. In the long term who knows what might happen. The EU might implode and the UK prosper, or vice versa, or we might rejoin. If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right. Because it’s damaged the economy, removed rights for no benefit, we instead have to wait ‘for years’ to make a judgement. Brexit was and is a crock. We’re now in damage limitation mode, and it will take years to recover even to where we were in 2016. It’s failed. " We're not even in damage limitation mode. Most politicians are too scared to be honest about Brexit for fear of losing votes. They're still pretending it was a good idea. Until we can be honest about the situation, we won't be able to start mitigation properly and making a plan how to move forward. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had to continue this thread as I think its funny how some people think , everyone was entitled to an opinion and vote on this matter and their is absolutely no reason to try and belittle people because of their reasons for voting leave, and to those that think leave voters didn't understand maybe you need to have a good hard look at yourselves. Just very sad how it has to be a personal attack on p just because of their reasons for voting leave Whatever you think, and however you voted, the truths is we won't know if Brexit can be measured a success or failure for years. In the short term, there were always going to challenges as we adjusted. In the long term who knows what might happen. The EU might implode and the UK prosper, or vice versa, or we might rejoin. If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right. Because it’s damaged the economy, removed rights for no benefit, we instead have to wait ‘for years’ to make a judgement. Brexit was and is a crock. We’re now in damage limitation mode, and it will take years to recover even to where we were in 2016. It’s failed. " Too early to say. There were always two strands to Brexit, economic and political. Economically, we've definitely taken a short-term hit, which may or may not endure. Political success is harder to measure and depends how you feel about sovereignty and self-determination. It's completely subjective. But whatever your views on the subject, you can't deny we have more political independence and flexibility outside the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had to continue this thread as I think its funny how some people think , everyone was entitled to an opinion and vote on this matter and their is absolutely no reason to try and belittle people because of their reasons for voting leave, and to those that think leave voters didn't understand maybe you need to have a good hard look at yourselves. Just very sad how it has to be a personal attack on p just because of their reasons for voting leave Whatever you think, and however you voted, the truths is we won't know if Brexit can be measured a success or failure for years. In the short term, there were always going to challenges as we adjusted. In the long term who knows what might happen. The EU might implode and the UK prosper, or vice versa, or we might rejoin. If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right. Because it’s damaged the economy, removed rights for no benefit, we instead have to wait ‘for years’ to make a judgement. Brexit was and is a crock. We’re now in damage limitation mode, and it will take years to recover even to where we were in 2016. It’s failed. Too early to say. There were always two strands to Brexit, economic and political. Economically, we've definitely taken a short-term hit, which may or may not endure. Political success is harder to measure and depends how you feel about sovereignty and self-determination. It's completely subjective. But whatever your views on the subject, you can't deny we have more political independence and flexibility outside the EU." We still have to comply with lots of EU regulations and standards to trade with the block. Only we no longer have an say in these. We have reduced our ability to determine some things. Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. Personally, I do not trust our government, and was much happier with the EU being there to protect us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right." I don't think they would. Leave voters have already won, they wouldn't need to gloat about it. The only time you get people banging on and on about an issue is when they haven't got what they want and they feel bad about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had to continue this thread as I think its funny how some people think , everyone was entitled to an opinion and vote on this matter and their is absolutely no reason to try and belittle people because of their reasons for voting leave, and to those that think leave voters didn't understand maybe you need to have a good hard look at yourselves. Just very sad how it has to be a personal attack on p just because of their reasons for voting leave Whatever you think, and however you voted, the truths is we won't know if Brexit can be measured a success or failure for years. In the short term, there were always going to challenges as we adjusted. In the long term who knows what might happen. The EU might implode and the UK prosper, or vice versa, or we might rejoin. If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right. Because it’s damaged the economy, removed rights for no benefit, we instead have to wait ‘for years’ to make a judgement. Brexit was and is a crock. We’re now in damage limitation mode, and it will take years to recover even to where we were in 2016. It’s failed. Too early to say. There were always two strands to Brexit, economic and political. Economically, we've definitely taken a short-term hit, which may or may not endure. Political success is harder to measure and depends how you feel about sovereignty and self-determination. It's completely subjective. But whatever your views on the subject, you can't deny we have more political independence and flexibility outside the EU. We still have to comply with lots of EU regulations and standards to trade with the block. Only we no longer have an say in these. We have reduced our ability to determine some things. Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. Personally, I do not trust our government, and was much happier with the EU being there to protect us. " If I didn’t know the context of your post I would not assume you lived in the UK. Your feelings and observations on the country are foreign to me, massively out of sync with reality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us." How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right. I don't think they would. Leave voters have already won, they wouldn't need to gloat about it. The only time you get people banging on and on about an issue is when they haven't got what they want and they feel bad about it." Is that why we see folks posting about how we compare to Germany/France etc when we see a GDP rise?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit?" Surely we need to judge this in 20 years time when we are allowed to decide if it was a success or not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit? Surely we need to judge this in 20 years time when we are allowed to decide if it was a success or not?" The reality is that we will never know! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right." "I don't think they would. Leave voters have already won, they wouldn't need to gloat about it. The only time you get people banging on and on about an issue is when they haven't got what they want and they feel bad about it." "Is that why we see folks posting about how we compare to Germany/France etc when we see a GDP rise?" We see one person doing that, and he's reacting to the group that used to post the same things when there was a GDP fall. If you go back and read those 'fall' threads you'll find many people blaming Brexit. If you read the 'rise' threads you'll find one person saying 'you were wrong about GDP'. He doesn't attempt to hold that up as proof that Brexit was a good idea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us." "How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit?" "Surely we need to judge this in 20 years time when we are allowed to decide if it was a success or not?" I'm happy to accept your proposal. I'll wait 20 years to discuss whether standards have fallen, if you wait 20 years before claiming that Brexit was definitely a bad idea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit? Surely we need to judge this in 20 years time when we are allowed to decide if it was a success or not? I'm happy to accept your proposal. I'll wait 20 years to discuss whether standards have fallen, if you wait 20 years before claiming that Brexit was definitely a bad idea." Oh no it definitely was a bad idea. All we’re doing now is collecting the evidence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit? Surely we need to judge this in 20 years time when we are allowed to decide if it was a success or not? I'm happy to accept your proposal. I'll wait 20 years to discuss whether standards have fallen, if you wait 20 years before claiming that Brexit was definitely a bad idea. Oh no it definitely was a bad idea. All we’re doing now is collecting the evidence "Bit strange that you only want to wait when it suits 
In the meantime, fancy answering...
How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent polling (July) suggests that 63% of Brits agree that Brexit has been a failure to date. " that's not bad 63% of remoaners still want to rejoin that means 37% have come over the dark side  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit? Surely we need to judge this in 20 years time when we are allowed to decide if it was a success or not? I'm happy to accept your proposal. I'll wait 20 years to discuss whether standards have fallen, if you wait 20 years before claiming that Brexit was definitely a bad idea. Oh no it definitely was a bad idea. All we’re doing now is collecting the evidence
Bit strange that you only want to wait when it suits
In the meantime, fancy answering...
How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit?"I don’t recall making a claim that any had, did I? The poster was right to point out that there is that potential though. After all, if we weren’t interested in regulatory divergence, why would we have left in the first place? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had to continue this thread as I think its funny how some people think , everyone was entitled to an opinion and vote on this matter and their is absolutely no reason to try and belittle people because of their reasons for voting leave, and to those that think leave voters didn't understand maybe you need to have a good hard look at yourselves. Just very sad how it has to be a personal attack on p just because of their reasons for voting leave Whatever you think, and however you voted, the truths is we won't know if Brexit can be measured a success or failure for years. In the short term, there were always going to challenges as we adjusted. In the long term who knows what might happen. The EU might implode and the UK prosper, or vice versa, or we might rejoin. If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right. Because it’s damaged the economy, removed rights for no benefit, we instead have to wait ‘for years’ to make a judgement. Brexit was and is a crock. We’re now in damage limitation mode, and it will take years to recover even to where we were in 2016. It’s failed. Too early to say. There were always two strands to Brexit, economic and political. Economically, we've definitely taken a short-term hit, which may or may not endure. Political success is harder to measure and depends how you feel about sovereignty and self-determination. It's completely subjective. But whatever your views on the subject, you can't deny we have more political independence and flexibility outside the EU. We still have to comply with lots of EU regulations and standards to trade with the block. Only we no longer have an say in these. We have reduced our ability to determine some things. Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. Personally, I do not trust our government, and was much happier with the EU being there to protect us. If I didn’t know the context of your post I would not assume you lived in the UK. Your feelings and observations on the country are foreign to me, massively out of sync with reality. " Have a look at what's going on in the country right now. It'll not be fun, but well worth it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent polling (July) suggests that 63% of Brits agree that Brexit has been a failure to date. that's not bad 63% of remoaners still want to rejoin that means 37% have come over the dark side "You're either suggesting that all Brits are "Remoaners", or you misunderstood the stats. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit?" I don't know, do you know? Is this related to the point that they are now free to remove the EU regulations on safety and such like. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit? Surely we need to judge this in 20 years time when we are allowed to decide if it was a success or not? I'm happy to accept your proposal. I'll wait 20 years to discuss whether standards have fallen, if you wait 20 years before claiming that Brexit was definitely a bad idea. Oh no it definitely was a bad idea. All we’re doing now is collecting the evidence
Bit strange that you only want to wait when it suits
In the meantime, fancy answering...
How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit?
I don’t recall making a claim that any had, did I?
The poster was right to point out that there is that potential though. After all, if we weren’t interested in regulatory divergence, why would we have left in the first place? "Our government aren't free to do anything though are they? We have a HoP and HoL that any proposals must go through. Was the poster still righ to point out that there is the potential that our 'Govt are free to do xyz'? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right. I don't think they would. Leave voters have already won, they wouldn't need to gloat about it. The only time you get people banging on and on about an issue is when they haven't got what they want and they feel bad about it." Leave voters won! That's a bold claim. I'd suggest that just like the rest of us, they lost. The only winners from Brexit are the disaster capitalists or those who wish to continue avoiding paying taxes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right. I don't think they would. Leave voters have already won, they wouldn't need to gloat about it. The only time you get people banging on and on about an issue is when they haven't got what they want and they feel bad about it. Leave voters won! That's a bold claim. I'd suggest that just like the rest of us, they lost. The only winners from Brexit are the disaster capitalists or those who wish to continue avoiding paying taxes." Still in denial? Those who voted leave, won the vote. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit? Surely we need to judge this in 20 years time when we are allowed to decide if it was a success or not? I'm happy to accept your proposal. I'll wait 20 years to discuss whether standards have fallen, if you wait 20 years before claiming that Brexit was definitely a bad idea. Oh no it definitely was a bad idea. All we’re doing now is collecting the evidence
Bit strange that you only want to wait when it suits
In the meantime, fancy answering...
How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit?
I don’t recall making a claim that any had, did I?
The poster was right to point out that there is that potential though. After all, if we weren’t interested in regulatory divergence, why would we have left in the first place?
Our government aren't free to do anything though are they? We have a HoP and HoL that any proposals must go through.
Was the poster still righ to point out that there is the potential that our 'Govt are free to do xyz'?"I accept that parliament should have been the phrase used, but I don’t think that’s the point being made here, is it? The point as I see it is that the EU had minimum standards that we needed to adhere to. We could always have had higher standards. So when we talk about regulatory divergence and standards, what’s the only direction we can go in that wasn’t possible as a member? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit? Surely we need to judge this in 20 years time when we are allowed to decide if it was a success or not? I'm happy to accept your proposal. I'll wait 20 years to discuss whether standards have fallen, if you wait 20 years before claiming that Brexit was definitely a bad idea. Oh no it definitely was a bad idea. All we’re doing now is collecting the evidence
Bit strange that you only want to wait when it suits
In the meantime, fancy answering...
How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit?
I don’t recall making a claim that any had, did I?
The poster was right to point out that there is that potential though. After all, if we weren’t interested in regulatory divergence, why would we have left in the first place?
Our government aren't free to do anything though are they? We have a HoP and HoL that any proposals must go through.
Was the poster still righ to point out that there is the potential that our 'Govt are free to do xyz'?
I accept that parliament should have been the phrase used, but I don’t think that’s the point being made here, is it?
The point as I see it is that the EU had minimum standards that we needed to adhere to. We could always have had higher standards.
So when we talk about regulatory divergence and standards, what’s the only direction we can go in that wasn’t possible as a member? "I think when we speak of regulatory standards we can only judge the parliament of the day. So far, as far as I'm aware, no standards have been lowered so it's a moot point. You're aware that there is potential for the EU to lower standards to aren't you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right. I don't think they would. Leave voters have already won, they wouldn't need to gloat about it. The only time you get people banging on and on about an issue is when they haven't got what they want and they feel bad about it. Leave voters won! That's a bold claim. I'd suggest that just like the rest of us, they lost. The only winners from Brexit are the disaster capitalists or those who wish to continue avoiding paying taxes." of course the won they got out of the eu stopped f o m and got out the customs union and single market, exactally what they were told by cameron if the vote was leave,u may not like it but im sure the 52% who voted for it dont even give it a 2nd thought these days | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right. I don't think they would. Leave voters have already won, they wouldn't need to gloat about it. The only time you get people banging on and on about an issue is when they haven't got what they want and they feel bad about it. Leave voters won! That's a bold claim. I'd suggest that just like the rest of us, they lost. The only winners from Brexit are the disaster capitalists or those who wish to continue avoiding paying taxes.of course the won they got out of the eu stopped f o m and got out the customs union and single market, exactally what they were told by cameron if the vote was leave,u may not like it but im sure the 52% who voted for it dont even give it a 2nd thought these days" I agree at that last point, and that's the problem. They voted for a turd, it's been dropped on all of us from a great height, and people in power still have to pretend the brexit turd is wonderful. So we can't start to figure out how to sort this mess. We're stuck in some weird limbo. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit? Surely we need to judge this in 20 years time when we are allowed to decide if it was a success or not? I'm happy to accept your proposal. I'll wait 20 years to discuss whether standards have fallen, if you wait 20 years before claiming that Brexit was definitely a bad idea. Oh no it definitely was a bad idea. All we’re doing now is collecting the evidence
Bit strange that you only want to wait when it suits
In the meantime, fancy answering...
How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit?
I don’t recall making a claim that any had, did I?
The poster was right to point out that there is that potential though. After all, if we weren’t interested in regulatory divergence, why would we have left in the first place?
Our government aren't free to do anything though are they? We have a HoP and HoL that any proposals must go through.
Was the poster still righ to point out that there is the potential that our 'Govt are free to do xyz'?
I accept that parliament should have been the phrase used, but I don’t think that’s the point being made here, is it?
The point as I see it is that the EU had minimum standards that we needed to adhere to. We could always have had higher standards.
So when we talk about regulatory divergence and standards, what’s the only direction we can go in that wasn’t possible as a member?
I think when we speak of regulatory standards we can only judge the parliament of the day. So far, as far as I'm aware, no standards have been lowered so it's a moot point.
You're aware that there is potential for the EU to lower standards to aren't you?"Talk to me about the process involved. Presumably there’s some kind of vote to do so? From elected MEP’s? To lower the minimum standards? Presumably then individual nations could still maintain higher standards, right? Sorry, I’m struggling to understand the point you think you’ve made. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us." "How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit?" "I don't know, do you know?" I do, none at all. "Is this related to the point that they are now free to remove the EU regulations on safety and such like." It is. The present government have been free to change those rules for 3.5 years, and have not done so. This suggests that they don't intend to do so, or at least they don't think necessary to do so. You thought it was important enough to post that they have this ability. Surely it's also important that they have restrained themselves from using it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit? I don't know, do you know? I do, none at all. Is this related to the point that they are now free to remove the EU regulations on safety and such like. It is. The present government have been free to change those rules for 3.5 years, and have not done so. This suggests that they don't intend to do so, or at least they don't think necessary to do so. You thought it was important enough to post that they have this ability. Surely it's also important that they have restrained themselves from using it." They keep banging on about a bonfire of EY regulations. Is that just bollocks from the government? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit? Surely we need to judge this in 20 years time when we are allowed to decide if it was a success or not? I'm happy to accept your proposal. I'll wait 20 years to discuss whether standards have fallen, if you wait 20 years before claiming that Brexit was definitely a bad idea. Oh no it definitely was a bad idea. All we’re doing now is collecting the evidence
Bit strange that you only want to wait when it suits
In the meantime, fancy answering...
How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit?
I don’t recall making a claim that any had, did I?
The poster was right to point out that there is that potential though. After all, if we weren’t interested in regulatory divergence, why would we have left in the first place?
Our government aren't free to do anything though are they? We have a HoP and HoL that any proposals must go through.
Was the poster still righ to point out that there is the potential that our 'Govt are free to do xyz'?
I accept that parliament should have been the phrase used, but I don’t think that’s the point being made here, is it?
The point as I see it is that the EU had minimum standards that we needed to adhere to. We could always have had higher standards.
So when we talk about regulatory divergence and standards, what’s the only direction we can go in that wasn’t possible as a member?
I think when we speak of regulatory standards we can only judge the parliament of the day. So far, as far as I'm aware, no standards have been lowered so it's a moot point.
You're aware that there is potential for the EU to lower standards to aren't you?
Talk to me about the process involved. Presumably there’s some kind of vote to do so? From elected MEP’s? To lower the minimum standards?
Presumably then individual nations could still maintain higher standards, right?
Sorry, I’m struggling to understand the point you think you’ve made. "Of course a vote would need to take place. As it happens, in a very similar manner to the one which would need to take place in this country. I'm not surprised you're struggling tbh. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right. I don't think they would. Leave voters have already won, they wouldn't need to gloat about it. The only time you get people banging on and on about an issue is when they haven't got what they want and they feel bad about it. Leave voters won! That's a bold claim. I'd suggest that just like the rest of us, they lost. The only winners from Brexit are the disaster capitalists or those who wish to continue avoiding paying taxes.of course the won they got out of the eu stopped f o m and got out the customs union and single market, exactally what they were told by cameron if the vote was leave,u may not like it but im sure the 52% who voted for it dont even give it a 2nd thought these days I agree at that last point, and that's the problem. They voted for a turd, it's been dropped on all of us from a great height, and people in power still have to pretend the brexit turd is wonderful. So we can't start to figure out how to sort this mess. We're stuck in some weird limbo. " yep thats right u have a vote the side with the biggest share wins then its enacted, until there is enough people in the country screaming to rejoin we aint rejoining, no political party would go against the vote because they know they wouldnt have a chance of winning power, labours stance now is just get on with it because they know anything apart from that will cost them votes,shit happens mate u win some you lose some, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit? Surely we need to judge this in 20 years time when we are allowed to decide if it was a success or not? I'm happy to accept your proposal. I'll wait 20 years to discuss whether standards have fallen, if you wait 20 years before claiming that Brexit was definitely a bad idea. Oh no it definitely was a bad idea. All we’re doing now is collecting the evidence
Bit strange that you only want to wait when it suits
In the meantime, fancy answering...
How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit?
I don’t recall making a claim that any had, did I?
The poster was right to point out that there is that potential though. After all, if we weren’t interested in regulatory divergence, why would we have left in the first place?
Our government aren't free to do anything though are they? We have a HoP and HoL that any proposals must go through.
Was the poster still righ to point out that there is the potential that our 'Govt are free to do xyz'?
I accept that parliament should have been the phrase used, but I don’t think that’s the point being made here, is it?
The point as I see it is that the EU had minimum standards that we needed to adhere to. We could always have had higher standards.
So when we talk about regulatory divergence and standards, what’s the only direction we can go in that wasn’t possible as a member?
I think when we speak of regulatory standards we can only judge the parliament of the day. So far, as far as I'm aware, no standards have been lowered so it's a moot point.
You're aware that there is potential for the EU to lower standards to aren't you?
Talk to me about the process involved. Presumably there’s some kind of vote to do so? From elected MEP’s? To lower the minimum standards?
Presumably then individual nations could still maintain higher standards, right?
Sorry, I’m struggling to understand the point you think you’ve made.
Of course a vote would need to take place. As it happens, in a very similar manner to the one which would need to take place in this country.
I'm not surprised you're struggling tbh. "The EU has minimum standards which a nation is free to go higher as a member. You tell me that the EU can lower standards. So we could still be higher as a member. Leaving was about regulatory divergence (in part). The only divergence that we can make now that wasn’t previously possible is lower. You’ve had a shocker, here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The point as I see it is that the EU had minimum standards that we needed to adhere to. We could always have had higher standards." You keep saying this, and I keep pointing out the flaw in your argument. As EU members we could have set higher standards, but other EU members wouldn't have to follow those standards, and we couldn't have stopped them from selling their lower standard products in the UK. That would mean that UK companies had to follow the higher standard, but EU companies could ignore that and follow the lower EU standard. We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot. "So when we talk about regulatory divergence and standards, what’s the only direction we can go in that wasn’t possible as a member? " We can now raise our standards and refuse to deal with countries that don't meet them. That wasn't possible before we left. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right. I don't think they would. Leave voters have already won, they wouldn't need to gloat about it. The only time you get people banging on and on about an issue is when they haven't got what they want and they feel bad about it. Leave voters won! That's a bold claim. I'd suggest that just like the rest of us, they lost. The only winners from Brexit are the disaster capitalists or those who wish to continue avoiding paying taxes.of course the won they got out of the eu stopped f o m and got out the customs union and single market, exactally what they were told by cameron if the vote was leave,u may not like it but im sure the 52% who voted for it dont even give it a 2nd thought these days I agree at that last point, and that's the problem. They voted for a turd, it's been dropped on all of us from a great height, and people in power still have to pretend the brexit turd is wonderful. So we can't start to figure out how to sort this mess. We're stuck in some weird limbo. yep thats right u have a vote the side with the biggest share wins then its enacted, until there is enough people in the country screaming to rejoin we aint rejoining, no political party would go against the vote because they know they wouldnt have a chance of winning power, labours stance now is just get on with it because they know anything apart from that will cost them votes,shit happens mate u win some you lose some, " We all lost. Is the point. But I don't necessarily think rejoining is the answer. I think the first step is to recognise the problems Brexit is causing, then figure out what to do. We don't seem to be able to achieve step 1. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The point as I see it is that the EU had minimum standards that we needed to adhere to. We could always have had higher standards. You keep saying this, and I keep pointing out the flaw in your argument. As EU members we could have set higher standards, but other EU members wouldn't have to follow those standards, and we couldn't have stopped them from selling their lower standard products in the UK. That would mean that UK companies had to follow the higher standard, but EU companies could ignore that and follow the lower EU standard. We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot. So when we talk about regulatory divergence and standards, what’s the only direction we can go in that wasn’t possible as a member? We can now raise our standards and refuse to deal with countries that don't meet them. That wasn't possible before we left." Except we’re not going to do that, because as you state above, that would be shooting ourselves in the foot. So what was the point of regulatory divergence again? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit? Surely we need to judge this in 20 years time when we are allowed to decide if it was a success or not? I'm happy to accept your proposal. I'll wait 20 years to discuss whether standards have fallen, if you wait 20 years before claiming that Brexit was definitely a bad idea. Oh no it definitely was a bad idea. All we’re doing now is collecting the evidence
Bit strange that you only want to wait when it suits
In the meantime, fancy answering...
How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit?
I don’t recall making a claim that any had, did I?
The poster was right to point out that there is that potential though. After all, if we weren’t interested in regulatory divergence, why would we have left in the first place?
Our government aren't free to do anything though are they? We have a HoP and HoL that any proposals must go through.
Was the poster still righ to point out that there is the potential that our 'Govt are free to do xyz'?
I accept that parliament should have been the phrase used, but I don’t think that’s the point being made here, is it?
The point as I see it is that the EU had minimum standards that we needed to adhere to. We could always have had higher standards.
So when we talk about regulatory divergence and standards, what’s the only direction we can go in that wasn’t possible as a member?
I think when we speak of regulatory standards we can only judge the parliament of the day. So far, as far as I'm aware, no standards have been lowered so it's a moot point.
You're aware that there is potential for the EU to lower standards to aren't you?
Talk to me about the process involved. Presumably there’s some kind of vote to do so? From elected MEP’s? To lower the minimum standards?
Presumably then individual nations could still maintain higher standards, right?
Sorry, I’m struggling to understand the point you think you’ve made.
Of course a vote would need to take place. As it happens, in a very similar manner to the one which would need to take place in this country.
I'm not surprised you're struggling tbh.
The EU has minimum standards which a nation is free to go higher as a member.
You tell me that the EU can lower standards. So we could still be higher as a member.
Leaving was about regulatory divergence (in part).
The only divergence that we can make now that wasn’t previously possible is lower.
You’ve had a shocker, here. "No I defintely haven't had a shocker, here or anywhere else. We could've had higher standards as an EU member. We could have higher standards outside the EU too. Anything that happens whether inside or outside the EU requires members to vote. This is just trying to make some sort of argument out of nothing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The point as I see it is that the EU had minimum standards that we needed to adhere to. We could always have had higher standards. You keep saying this, and I keep pointing out the flaw in your argument. As EU members we could have set higher standards, but other EU members wouldn't have to follow those standards, and we couldn't have stopped them from selling their lower standard products in the UK. That would mean that UK companies had to follow the higher standard, but EU companies could ignore that and follow the lower EU standard. We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot. So when we talk about regulatory divergence and standards, what’s the only direction we can go in that wasn’t possible as a member? We can now raise our standards and refuse to deal with countries that don't meet them. That wasn't possible before we left." Yup  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right. I don't think they would. Leave voters have already won, they wouldn't need to gloat about it. The only time you get people banging on and on about an issue is when they haven't got what they want and they feel bad about it. Leave voters won! That's a bold claim. I'd suggest that just like the rest of us, they lost. The only winners from Brexit are the disaster capitalists or those who wish to continue avoiding paying taxes.of course the won they got out of the eu stopped f o m and got out the customs union and single market, exactally what they were told by cameron if the vote was leave,u may not like it but im sure the 52% who voted for it dont even give it a 2nd thought these days I agree at that last point, and that's the problem. They voted for a turd, it's been dropped on all of us from a great height, and people in power still have to pretend the brexit turd is wonderful. So we can't start to figure out how to sort this mess. We're stuck in some weird limbo. yep thats right u have a vote the side with the biggest share wins then its enacted, until there is enough people in the country screaming to rejoin we aint rejoining, no political party would go against the vote because they know they wouldnt have a chance of winning power, labours stance now is just get on with it because they know anything apart from that will cost them votes,shit happens mate u win some you lose some, We all lost. Is the point. But I don't necessarily think rejoining is the answer. I think the first step is to recognise the problems Brexit is causing, then figure out what to do. We don't seem to be able to achieve step 1." i love the way you keep saying we all lost,my life hasnt changed a bit not being in the eu, some peoples has changed for the worse and some peoples for the better, how u can say everyone has lost and keep a straight face is beyond me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right. I don't think they would. Leave voters have already won, they wouldn't need to gloat about it. The only time you get people banging on and on about an issue is when they haven't got what they want and they feel bad about it. Leave voters won! That's a bold claim. I'd suggest that just like the rest of us, they lost. The only winners from Brexit are the disaster capitalists or those who wish to continue avoiding paying taxes.of course the won they got out of the eu stopped f o m and got out the customs union and single market, exactally what they were told by cameron if the vote was leave,u may not like it but im sure the 52% who voted for it dont even give it a 2nd thought these days I agree at that last point, and that's the problem. They voted for a turd, it's been dropped on all of us from a great height, and people in power still have to pretend the brexit turd is wonderful. So we can't start to figure out how to sort this mess. We're stuck in some weird limbo. yep thats right u have a vote the side with the biggest share wins then its enacted, until there is enough people in the country screaming to rejoin we aint rejoining, no political party would go against the vote because they know they wouldnt have a chance of winning power, labours stance now is just get on with it because they know anything apart from that will cost them votes,shit happens mate u win some you lose some, We all lost. Is the point. But I don't necessarily think rejoining is the answer. I think the first step is to recognise the problems Brexit is causing, then figure out what to do. We don't seem to be able to achieve step 1.i love the way you keep saying we all lost,my life hasnt changed a bit not being in the eu, some peoples has changed for the worse and some peoples for the better, how u can say everyone has lost and keep a straight face is beyond me" The only people whose lives changed for the better are disaster capitalists and people who want to avoid paying taxes with offshore schemes. The way people voted is not related to if they won or lost. Maybe someone voted remain, but is a billionaire and made a shit tonne of money shorting the pound. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We can now raise our standards and refuse to deal with countries that don't meet them. That wasn't possible before we left." "Except we’re not going to do that, because as you state above, that would be shooting ourselves in the foot." We already have done it. The recent trade deal with Australia means that meat imported to the UK must meet the UK's animal welfare standards. We're forcing them to up their standards to meet ours if they want to sell here. It's not shooting ourselves in the foot if we raise our standards and force our trading partners to do the same thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had to continue this thread as I think its funny how some people think , everyone was entitled to an opinion and vote on this matter and their is absolutely no reason to try and belittle people because of their reasons for voting leave, and to those that think leave voters didn't understand maybe you need to have a good hard look at yourselves. Just very sad how it has to be a personal attack on p just because of their reasons for voting leave Whatever you think, and however you voted, the truths is we won't know if Brexit can be measured a success or failure for years. In the short term, there were always going to challenges as we adjusted. In the long term who knows what might happen. The EU might implode and the UK prosper, or vice versa, or we might rejoin. If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right. Because it’s damaged the economy, removed rights for no benefit, we instead have to wait ‘for years’ to make a judgement. Brexit was and is a crock. We’re now in damage limitation mode, and it will take years to recover even to where we were in 2016. It’s failed. Too early to say. There were always two strands to Brexit, economic and political. Economically, we've definitely taken a short-term hit, which may or may not endure. Political success is harder to measure and depends how you feel about sovereignty and self-determination. It's completely subjective. But whatever your views on the subject, you can't deny we have more political independence and flexibility outside the EU. We still have to comply with lots of EU regulations and standards to trade with the block. Only we no longer have an say in these. We have reduced our ability to determine some things. Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. Personally, I do not trust our government, and was much happier with the EU being there to protect us. " If we don't like what our government do we can vote them out of office. I don't need the EU to protect me with a plethora of laws and regulations that take precedence over ours. As a nation, we have made huge sacrifices for our freedoms and self-determination. Let's not roll over and be ruled by an EU federal parliament. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had to continue this thread as I think its funny how some people think , everyone was entitled to an opinion and vote on this matter and their is absolutely no reason to try and belittle people because of their reasons for voting leave, and to those that think leave voters didn't understand maybe you need to have a good hard look at yourselves. Just very sad how it has to be a personal attack on p just because of their reasons for voting leave Whatever you think, and however you voted, the truths is we won't know if Brexit can be measured a success or failure for years. In the short term, there were always going to challenges as we adjusted. In the long term who knows what might happen. The EU might implode and the UK prosper, or vice versa, or we might rejoin. If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right. Because it’s damaged the economy, removed rights for no benefit, we instead have to wait ‘for years’ to make a judgement. Brexit was and is a crock. We’re now in damage limitation mode, and it will take years to recover even to where we were in 2016. It’s failed. Too early to say. There were always two strands to Brexit, economic and political. Economically, we've definitely taken a short-term hit, which may or may not endure. Political success is harder to measure and depends how you feel about sovereignty and self-determination. It's completely subjective. But whatever your views on the subject, you can't deny we have more political independence and flexibility outside the EU. We still have to comply with lots of EU regulations and standards to trade with the block. Only we no longer have an say in these. We have reduced our ability to determine some things. Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. Personally, I do not trust our government, and was much happier with the EU being there to protect us. If we don't like what our government do we can vote them out of office. I don't need the EU to protect me with a plethora of laws and regulations that take precedence over ours. As a nation, we have made huge sacrifices for our freedoms and self-determination. Let's not roll over and be ruled by an EU federal parliament." We weren't ruled by the EU, they don't have a federal parliament, we used to have a day on EU rules, which then became our laws. Environmental protections, workers rights, safety standards. All of which are good things. Our government are fucking useless, yet continue to get voted in over and over. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We can now raise our standards and refuse to deal with countries that don't meet them. That wasn't possible before we left. Except we’re not going to do that, because as you state above, that would be shooting ourselves in the foot. We already have done it. The recent trade deal with Australia means that meat imported to the UK must meet the UK's animal welfare standards. We're forcing them to up their standards to meet ours if they want to sell here. " “Some, however, have expressed wider concerns about standards. Farming, environmental and animal welfare groups are concerned that some Australian products are produced to lower animal welfare and environmental standards than in the UK. The NFU said it sees “almost nothing in the deal that will prevent an increase in imports of food produced well below the production standards required of UK farmers”. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee’s report on the agreement concluded it was unlikely that food produced to lower animal welfare standards would be imported into the UK. The TAC found “in most cases, the concerns [about standards ] were a little bit exaggerated for one reason or another”. The TAC did find, however, there was likely to be an increase in imports of products from Australia produced using pesticides that would not be permitted in the UK” https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9484/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We can now raise our standards and refuse to deal with countries that don't meet them. That wasn't possible before we left." "Except we’re not going to do that, because as you state above, that would be shooting ourselves in the foot." "We already have done it. The recent trade deal with Australia means that meat imported to the UK must meet the UK's animal welfare standards. We're forcing them to up their standards to meet ours if they want to sell here." "“Some, however, have expressed wider concerns about standards. Farming, environmental and animal welfare groups are concerned that some Australian products are produced to lower animal welfare and environmental standards than in the UK. The NFU said it sees “almost nothing in the deal that will prevent an increase in imports of food produced well below the production standards required of UK farmers”. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee’s report on the agreement concluded it was unlikely that food produced to lower animal welfare standards would be imported into the UK. The TAC found “in most cases, the concerns [about standards ] were a little bit exaggerated for one reason or another”. The TAC did find, however, there was likely to be an increase in imports of products from Australia produced using pesticides that would not be permitted in the UK” https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9484/" I'm not sure what you think you've just posted, but that quote can be summarised as 'people are worried about standards, but there's no need to be'. What point were you trying to make? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had to continue this thread as I think its funny how some people think , everyone was entitled to an opinion and vote on this matter and their is absolutely no reason to try and belittle people because of their reasons for voting leave, and to those that think leave voters didn't understand maybe you need to have a good hard look at yourselves. Just very sad how it has to be a personal attack on p just because of their reasons for voting leave Whatever you think, and however you voted, the truths is we won't know if Brexit can be measured a success or failure for years. In the short term, there were always going to challenges as we adjusted. In the long term who knows what might happen. The EU might implode and the UK prosper, or vice versa, or we might rejoin. If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right. Because it’s damaged the economy, removed rights for no benefit, we instead have to wait ‘for years’ to make a judgement. Brexit was and is a crock. We’re now in damage limitation mode, and it will take years to recover even to where we were in 2016. It’s failed. Too early to say. There were always two strands to Brexit, economic and political. Economically, we've definitely taken a short-term hit, which may or may not endure. Political success is harder to measure and depends how you feel about sovereignty and self-determination. It's completely subjective. But whatever your views on the subject, you can't deny we have more political independence and flexibility outside the EU. We still have to comply with lots of EU regulations and standards to trade with the block. Only we no longer have an say in these. We have reduced our ability to determine some things. Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. Personally, I do not trust our government, and was much happier with the EU being there to protect us. If we don't like what our government do we can vote them out of office. I don't need the EU to protect me with a plethora of laws and regulations that take precedence over ours. As a nation, we have made huge sacrifices for our freedoms and self-determination. Let's not roll over and be ruled by an EU federal parliament. We weren't ruled by the EU, they don't have a federal parliament, we used to have a day on EU rules, which then became our laws. Environmental protections, workers rights, safety standards. All of which are good things. Our government are fucking useless, yet continue to get voted in over and over. " True, we weren't completely ruled by the EU, but we were sleepwalking in that direction no doubt about it. I can agree our politicians are useless, but I can vote them out. However, I can't vote out the EU Parliament nor EU Commission can I? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"EU Commissioners hold sway over the approx 450 million people in the EU. Van Rompuy, Junker, Barnier, von de Leyen and the rest of the boys in the band. Which ballot paper did they appear on that we could put an x against? Who gave them their power?; Who were they accountable to?; On whose behalf did they exercise their power?;How could we get rid of them? Democratic defecit p " I met an EU Commissioner in Brussels. She said to me, "We all believe in what we are doing. Providing a service". National leaders and their Parliaments set what things the EU is to be for. Everything that isn't covered in the treaties is the job of each country. The head of the European Commission is chosen by national leaders and approved by directly elected MEPs in the European Parliament. The European Parliament interviews candidates for Commission jobs and the hearings are public. The European Parliament can and does block people from Commission jobs for conflict of interest. The entire College of Commissioners has to be approved by a vote of the European Parliament before it can start work. It's similar for the EU budget. The budget cannot come into force until the report of the European Court of Auditors has been approved and until the budget has been voted for by the European Parliament. The European Parliament can sack the entire Commission with a two thirds majority. In 1999 the entire Commission resigned rather than face a vote against it by the European Parliament. The Commission is asked to make proposals on the things that are covered in the treaties. The Commission has to be independent. It's not allowed to take instructions from anyone. The Commission gets invited to make proposals, by the European Parliament, by governments, and by the European Citizens' Initiative. The Commission can say no but it has to give a reason. The Commission must not be directly elected because then it would be beholden to a political group and its independence would be compromised. That's why the Commission is not and should not be directly elected. After a formal proposal, it can be cancelled by national parliaments if it goes beyond what is allowed in the treaties. A proposal can be amended by national government ministers and they have to vote for it before it can come into effect. For most things, the European Parliament can also amend and also has to vote in favour. If there is no agreement between the European Parliament and the house of government ministers, then it goes to "conciliation". In the end the proposal is either adopted or not adopted. The resulting EU law can be struck down by the EU courts if someone can show they are harmed by it. The Commission is asked to make some decisions, like on competition rules. Commission decisions are not final. They can be overturned by the EU's lower court. The upper court can overturn the lower court. The Commission is accountable to the European Ombudsman which is open to the public. The Commission is accountable to the European Parliament, national leaders, national governments, national parliaments, the European Court of Auditors, and the EU's courts. There is also the Europe Direct enquiry service that is open to the public. All Commission staff are governed by the EU Staff Regulations. They may not comment on their work publically while they are employed. If they do, they can lose their job and their pension. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We can now raise our standards and refuse to deal with countries that don't meet them. That wasn't possible before we left. Except we’re not going to do that, because as you state above, that would be shooting ourselves in the foot. We already have done it. The recent trade deal with Australia means that meat imported to the UK must meet the UK's animal welfare standards. We're forcing them to up their standards to meet ours if they want to sell here. “Some, however, have expressed wider concerns about standards. Farming, environmental and animal welfare groups are concerned that some Australian products are produced to lower animal welfare and environmental standards than in the UK. The NFU said it sees “almost nothing in the deal that will prevent an increase in imports of food produced well below the production standards required of UK farmers”. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee’s report on the agreement concluded it was unlikely that food produced to lower animal welfare standards would be imported into the UK. The TAC found “in most cases, the concerns [about standards ] were a little bit exaggerated for one reason or another”. The TAC did find, however, there was likely to be an increase in imports of products from Australia produced using pesticides that would not be permitted in the UK” https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9484/ I'm not sure what you think you've just posted, but that quote can be summarised as 'people are worried about standards, but there's no need to be'. What point were you trying to make?" I’m not sure you read it. ‘The NFU said it sees “almost nothing in the deal that will prevent an increase in imports of food produced well below the production standards required of UK farmers”. Nor the bit about dangerous pesticides. So your claim was incorrect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had to continue this thread as I think its funny how some people think , everyone was entitled to an opinion and vote on this matter and their is absolutely no reason to try and belittle people because of their reasons for voting leave, and to those that think leave voters didn't understand maybe you need to have a good hard look at yourselves. Just very sad how it has to be a personal attack on p just because of their reasons for voting leave Whatever you think, and however you voted, the truths is we won't know if Brexit can be measured a success or failure for years. In the short term, there were always going to challenges as we adjusted. In the long term who knows what might happen. The EU might implode and the UK prosper, or vice versa, or we might rejoin. If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right. Because it’s damaged the economy, removed rights for no benefit, we instead have to wait ‘for years’ to make a judgement. Brexit was and is a crock. We’re now in damage limitation mode, and it will take years to recover even to where we were in 2016. It’s failed. Too early to say. There were always two strands to Brexit, economic and political. Economically, we've definitely taken a short-term hit, which may or may not endure. Political success is harder to measure and depends how you feel about sovereignty and self-determination. It's completely subjective. But whatever your views on the subject, you can't deny we have more political independence and flexibility outside the EU. We still have to comply with lots of EU regulations and standards to trade with the block. Only we no longer have an say in these. We have reduced our ability to determine some things. Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. Personally, I do not trust our government, and was much happier with the EU being there to protect us. If we don't like what our government do we can vote them out of office. I don't need the EU to protect me with a plethora of laws and regulations that take precedence over ours. As a nation, we have made huge sacrifices for our freedoms and self-determination. Let's not roll over and be ruled by an EU federal parliament. We weren't ruled by the EU, they don't have a federal parliament, we used to have a day on EU rules, which then became our laws. Environmental protections, workers rights, safety standards. All of which are good things. Our government are fucking useless, yet continue to get voted in over and over. True, we weren't completely ruled by the EU, but we were sleepwalking in that direction no doubt about it. I can agree our politicians are useless, but I can vote them out. However, I can't vote out the EU Parliament nor EU Commission can I?" You could vote for the MEPs. I don't think we were sleepwalking in that direction at all. We still had a say in the rules and regs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We can now raise our standards and refuse to deal with countries that don't meet them. That wasn't possible before we left. Except we’re not going to do that, because as you state above, that would be shooting ourselves in the foot. We already have done it. The recent trade deal with Australia means that meat imported to the UK must meet the UK's animal welfare standards. We're forcing them to up their standards to meet ours if they want to sell here. “Some, however, have expressed wider concerns about standards. Farming, environmental and animal welfare groups are concerned that some Australian products are produced to lower animal welfare and environmental standards than in the UK. The NFU said it sees “almost nothing in the deal that will prevent an increase in imports of food produced well below the production standards required of UK farmers”. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee’s report on the agreement concluded it was unlikely that food produced to lower animal welfare standards would be imported into the UK. The TAC found “in most cases, the concerns [about standards ] were a little bit exaggerated for one reason or another”. The TAC did find, however, there was likely to be an increase in imports of products from Australia produced using pesticides that would not be permitted in the UK” https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9484/ I'm not sure what you think you've just posted, but that quote can be summarised as 'people are worried about standards, but there's no need to be'. What point were you trying to make? I’m not sure you read it. ‘The NFU said it sees “almost nothing in the deal that will prevent an increase in imports of food produced well below the production standards required of UK farmers”. Nor the bit about dangerous pesticides. So your claim was incorrect. " The FSA says: "The UK-Australia FTA maintains existing food safety statutory protections in accordance with retained law. No changes to the UK food safety regulatory system are required to give effect to this FTA at the point of entry into force." Am I reading this wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had to continue this thread as I think its funny how some people think , everyone was entitled to an opinion and vote on this matter and their is absolutely no reason to try and belittle people because of their reasons for voting leave, and to those that think leave voters didn't understand maybe you need to have a good hard look at yourselves. Just very sad how it has to be a personal attack on p just because of their reasons for voting leave Whatever you think, and however you voted, the truths is we won't know if Brexit can be measured a success or failure for years. In the short term, there were always going to challenges as we adjusted. In the long term who knows what might happen. The EU might implode and the UK prosper, or vice versa, or we might rejoin. If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right. Because it’s damaged the economy, removed rights for no benefit, we instead have to wait ‘for years’ to make a judgement. Brexit was and is a crock. We’re now in damage limitation mode, and it will take years to recover even to where we were in 2016. It’s failed. Too early to say. There were always two strands to Brexit, economic and political. Economically, we've definitely taken a short-term hit, which may or may not endure. Political success is harder to measure and depends how you feel about sovereignty and self-determination. It's completely subjective. But whatever your views on the subject, you can't deny we have more political independence and flexibility outside the EU. We still have to comply with lots of EU regulations and standards to trade with the block. Only we no longer have an say in these. We have reduced our ability to determine some things. Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. Personally, I do not trust our government, and was much happier with the EU being there to protect us. If we don't like what our government do we can vote them out of office. I don't need the EU to protect me with a plethora of laws and regulations that take precedence over ours. As a nation, we have made huge sacrifices for our freedoms and self-determination. Let's not roll over and be ruled by an EU federal parliament. We weren't ruled by the EU, they don't have a federal parliament, we used to have a day on EU rules, which then became our laws. Environmental protections, workers rights, safety standards. All of which are good things. Our government are fucking useless, yet continue to get voted in over and over. True, we weren't completely ruled by the EU, but we were sleepwalking in that direction no doubt about it. I can agree our politicians are useless, but I can vote them out. However, I can't vote out the EU Parliament nor EU Commission can I? You could vote for the MEPs. I don't think we were sleepwalking in that direction at all. We still had a say in the rules and regs. " Well yes, but the entire quota of UK MEP's isn't enough to change EU policy. We saw that with Farage and his cohorts. They were entertaining, but had no influence on the EU whatsoever and were largely ignored. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We can now raise our standards and refuse to deal with countries that don't meet them. That wasn't possible before we left." "Except we’re not going to do that, because as you state above, that would be shooting ourselves in the foot." "We already have done it. The recent trade deal with Australia means that meat imported to the UK must meet the UK's animal welfare standards. We're forcing them to up their standards to meet ours if they want to sell here." "“Some, however, have expressed wider concerns about standards. Farming, environmental and animal welfare groups are concerned that some Australian products are produced to lower animal welfare and environmental standards than in the UK. The NFU said it sees “almost nothing in the deal that will prevent an increase in imports of food produced well below the production standards required of UK farmers”. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee’s report on the agreement concluded it was unlikely that food produced to lower animal welfare standards would be imported into the UK. The TAC found “in most cases, the concerns [about standards ] were a little bit exaggerated for one reason or another”. The TAC did find, however, there was likely to be an increase in imports of products from Australia produced using pesticides that would not be permitted in the UK” https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9484/" "I'm not sure what you think you've just posted, but that quote can be summarised as 'people are worried about standards, but there's no need to be'. What point were you trying to make?" "I’m not sure you read it. ‘The NFU said it sees “almost nothing in the deal that will prevent an increase in imports of food produced well below the production standards required of UK farmers”. Nor the bit about dangerous pesticides. So your claim was incorrect." It seems that you haven't read your own quote. It says that some groups have expressed concerns, not that they produced any evidence. It then goes on to say "The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee’s report on the agreement concluded it was unlikely that food produced to lower animal welfare standards would be imported into the UK". That's affirmation that standards will not be lowered. We don't restrict the import of products that were produced using non-permitted pesticides. The only reason they are banned here is because of their effects on wildlife, not because they are dangerous to health. If the Australians are happy to damage their own wildlife, that doesn't affect food standards here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had to continue this thread as I think its funny how some people think , everyone was entitled to an opinion and vote on this matter and their is absolutely no reason to try and belittle people because of their reasons for voting leave, and to those that think leave voters didn't understand maybe you need to have a good hard look at yourselves. Just very sad how it has to be a personal attack on p just because of their reasons for voting leave Whatever you think, and however you voted, the truths is we won't know if Brexit can be measured a success or failure for years. In the short term, there were always going to challenges as we adjusted. In the long term who knows what might happen. The EU might implode and the UK prosper, or vice versa, or we might rejoin. If we’d seen immediate economic success, the plethora of trade deals being beavered away at, a drop in immigration numbers etc etc then Brexiters would be screaming from the rooftops about how amazing it was, and how they were right. Because it’s damaged the economy, removed rights for no benefit, we instead have to wait ‘for years’ to make a judgement. Brexit was and is a crock. We’re now in damage limitation mode, and it will take years to recover even to where we were in 2016. It’s failed. Too early to say. There were always two strands to Brexit, economic and political. Economically, we've definitely taken a short-term hit, which may or may not endure. Political success is harder to measure and depends how you feel about sovereignty and self-determination. It's completely subjective. But whatever your views on the subject, you can't deny we have more political independence and flexibility outside the EU. We still have to comply with lots of EU regulations and standards to trade with the block. Only we no longer have an say in these. We have reduced our ability to determine some things. Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. Personally, I do not trust our government, and was much happier with the EU being there to protect us. If we don't like what our government do we can vote them out of office. I don't need the EU to protect me with a plethora of laws and regulations that take precedence over ours. As a nation, we have made huge sacrifices for our freedoms and self-determination. Let's not roll over and be ruled by an EU federal parliament. We weren't ruled by the EU, they don't have a federal parliament, we used to have a day on EU rules, which then became our laws. Environmental protections, workers rights, safety standards. All of which are good things. Our government are fucking useless, yet continue to get voted in over and over. True, we weren't completely ruled by the EU, but we were sleepwalking in that direction no doubt about it. I can agree our politicians are useless, but I can vote them out. However, I can't vote out the EU Parliament nor EU Commission can I? You could vote for the MEPs. I don't think we were sleepwalking in that direction at all. We still had a say in the rules and regs. Well yes, but the entire quota of UK MEP's isn't enough to change EU policy. We saw that with Farage and his cohorts. They were entertaining, but had no influence on the EU whatsoever and were largely ignored. " In fairness, Farage barely showed up. Attended one of 42 fishery committee meetings as an example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We can now raise our standards and refuse to deal with countries that don't meet them. That wasn't possible before we left. Except we’re not going to do that, because as you state above, that would be shooting ourselves in the foot. We already have done it. The recent trade deal with Australia means that meat imported to the UK must meet the UK's animal welfare standards. We're forcing them to up their standards to meet ours if they want to sell here. “Some, however, have expressed wider concerns about standards. Farming, environmental and animal welfare groups are concerned that some Australian products are produced to lower animal welfare and environmental standards than in the UK. The NFU said it sees “almost nothing in the deal that will prevent an increase in imports of food produced well below the production standards required of UK farmers”. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee’s report on the agreement concluded it was unlikely that food produced to lower animal welfare standards would be imported into the UK. The TAC found “in most cases, the concerns [about standards ] were a little bit exaggerated for one reason or another”. The TAC did find, however, there was likely to be an increase in imports of products from Australia produced using pesticides that would not be permitted in the UK” https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9484/ I'm not sure what you think you've just posted, but that quote can be summarised as 'people are worried about standards, but there's no need to be'. What point were you trying to make? I’m not sure you read it. ‘The NFU said it sees “almost nothing in the deal that will prevent an increase in imports of food produced well below the production standards required of UK farmers”. Nor the bit about dangerous pesticides. So your claim was incorrect. It seems that you haven't read your own quote. It says that some groups have expressed concerns, not that they produced any evidence. It then goes on to say "The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee’s report on the agreement concluded it was unlikely that food produced to lower animal welfare standards would be imported into the UK". That's affirmation that standards will not be lowered. We don't restrict the import of products that were produced using non-permitted pesticides. The only reason they are banned here is because of their effects on wildlife, not because they are dangerous to health. If the Australians are happy to damage their own wildlife, that doesn't affect food standards here." What does ‘unlikely’ mean? What does affirmation mean? And they use neonicotinoids, do they not? What impact might that have on our bee population, for example? What about paraquat? Is that hazardous? I thought we were ensuring that other nations brought their standards up to match ours? Isn’t that what you said? | |||
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) | |||
"It seems that you haven't read your own quote. It says that some groups have expressed concerns, not that they produced any evidence. It then goes on to say "The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee’s report on the agreement concluded it was unlikely that food produced to lower animal welfare standards would be imported into the UK". That's affirmation that standards will not be lowered. We don't restrict the import of products that were produced using non-permitted pesticides. The only reason they are banned here is because of their effects on wildlife, not because they are dangerous to health. If the Australians are happy to damage their own wildlife, that doesn't affect food standards here." "What does ‘unlikely’ mean?" It means that it is not likely that sub-standard produce will reach UK shores. Some may be sent illegally, but the same problem is present with any trading partner. "What does affirmation mean?" It means that the committee's findings affirm what I was saying, that not only must our standards be met, but that they will be enforced, so that it is unlikely sub-standard produce will ever arrive here. "And they use neonicotinoids, do they not? What impact might that have on our bee population, for example?" None whatsoever. Neonicotinoids are organic compounds that break down in nature. They won't be present in the food products imported to the UK. Spraying them on Australian crops is a problem for Australia, not the UK. "What about paraquat? Is that hazardous?" No. Again, spraying it is hazardous, but that would happen in Australia. Use of paraquat is all but undetectable in food products. If we considered it hazardous, we could simply make a new law saying that it must not be present at any detectable level, and then the Australians would have to stop using it on crops intended for UK export. "I thought we were ensuring that other nations brought their standards up to match ours? Isn’t that what you said? " We do indeed have higher standards than Australia, and we are insisting that Australia follows those higher standards if they want to export their produce to the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems that you haven't read your own quote. It says that some groups have expressed concerns, not that they produced any evidence. It then goes on to say "The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee’s report on the agreement concluded it was unlikely that food produced to lower animal welfare standards would be imported into the UK". That's affirmation that standards will not be lowered. We don't restrict the import of products that were produced using non-permitted pesticides. The only reason they are banned here is because of their effects on wildlife, not because they are dangerous to health. If the Australians are happy to damage their own wildlife, that doesn't affect food standards here. What does ‘unlikely’ mean? It means that it is not likely that sub-standard produce will reach UK shores. Some may be sent illegally, but the same problem is present with any trading partner. What does affirmation mean? It means that the committee's findings affirm what I was saying, that not only must our standards be met, but that they will be enforced, so that it is unlikely sub-standard produce will ever arrive here. And they use neonicotinoids, do they not? What impact might that have on our bee population, for example? None whatsoever. Neonicotinoids are organic compounds that break down in nature. They won't be present in the food products imported to the UK. Spraying them on Australian crops is a problem for Australia, not the UK. What about paraquat? Is that hazardous? No. Again, spraying it is hazardous, but that would happen in Australia. Use of paraquat is all but undetectable in food products. If we considered it hazardous, we could simply make a new law saying that it must not be present at any detectable level, and then the Australians would have to stop using it on crops intended for UK export. I thought we were ensuring that other nations brought their standards up to match ours? Isn’t that what you said? We do indeed have higher standards than Australia, and we are insisting that Australia follows those higher standards if they want to export their produce to the UK." "Paraquat, when ingested, is extremely toxic. It causes a spectrum of complications including acute respiratory distress syndrome, renal failure, hepatotoxicity, and pulmonary fibrosis. The clinical course in paraquat poisoning is often protracted and there is no known antidote for this toxin." Yummy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems that you haven't read your own quote. It says that some groups have expressed concerns, not that they produced any evidence. It then goes on to say "The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee’s report on the agreement concluded it was unlikely that food produced to lower animal welfare standards would be imported into the UK". That's affirmation that standards will not be lowered. We don't restrict the import of products that were produced using non-permitted pesticides. The only reason they are banned here is because of their effects on wildlife, not because they are dangerous to health. If the Australians are happy to damage their own wildlife, that doesn't affect food standards here. What does ‘unlikely’ mean? It means that it is not likely that sub-standard produce will reach UK shores. Some may be sent illegally, but the same problem is present with any trading partner. What does affirmation mean? It means that the committee's findings affirm what I was saying, that not only must our standards be met, but that they will be enforced, so that it is unlikely sub-standard produce will ever arrive here. And they use neonicotinoids, do they not? What impact might that have on our bee population, for example? None whatsoever. Neonicotinoids are organic compounds that break down in nature. They won't be present in the food products imported to the UK. Spraying them on Australian crops is a problem for Australia, not the UK. What about paraquat? Is that hazardous? No. Again, spraying it is hazardous, but that would happen in Australia. Use of paraquat is all but undetectable in food products. If we considered it hazardous, we could simply make a new law saying that it must not be present at any detectable level, and then the Australians would have to stop using it on crops intended for UK export. I thought we were ensuring that other nations brought their standards up to match ours? Isn’t that what you said? We do indeed have higher standards than Australia, and we are insisting that Australia follows those higher standards if they want to export their produce to the UK. "Paraquat, when ingested, is extremely toxic. It causes a spectrum of complications including acute respiratory distress syndrome, renal failure, hepatotoxicity, and pulmonary fibrosis. The clinical course in paraquat poisoning is often protracted and there is no known antidote for this toxin." Yummy" I cannot see many people drinking paraquat as it is deadly. Weed control is essential for maintaining farmland, gardens and public amenities . We do not need EU relations to control it. The EU attempted to ban glgphosphate. My father used parquat regularly and lived to a good old age . Anyone with common sense knows it is dangerous in the wrong circumstances. I order glyphos from a commercial supplier and simply wear a mask , gloves and eye protection when using it. Parquat and Glyphosate have made lives a lot easier for gardeners , farmers and local authorities. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"escape from federalism... Heath conned us into the then 'common market'. Thatcher's "NO, NO NO..!"..." Absurd. Don't want to take part in a federal Europe? Simply don't sign a treaty to that effect. There's no compulsion. Besides, I asked the former MEP Judith Bunting about that. She replied that in all her time in the European Parliament, "not one person ever mentioned a federal Europe". Edward Heath was upfront about it. There was no secret. He said it was a big step which will change our country, we should, indeed must, play our part". That was followed by a referendum in 1975 that was convincingly in favour of being in the EEC (and Euratom, the European Atomic Energy Community). Thatcher said, "Britain does not break treaties". Otherwise it would be a "disaster. Jobs would be at risk. No-one but the Russians would be pleased". Thatcher was criticised by Geoffrey Howe for risking isolation in Europe. He said her "finger wagging" was not a good idea. Howe said "she seems to look out upon a Continent that is positively teeming with ill-intentioned people... What kind of attitude is that, for our business people... or for all the young people of today?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Paraquat, when ingested, is extremely toxic. It causes a spectrum of complications including acute respiratory distress syndrome, renal failure, hepatotoxicity, and pulmonary fibrosis. The clinical course in paraquat poisoning is often protracted and there is no known antidote for this toxin." Yummy" It certainly is horrible stuff, and I wouldn't want to be near an Australian farm where they were spraying it. But since it isn't present in the food products they ship over here, I don't see a problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems that you haven't read your own quote. It says that some groups have expressed concerns, not that they produced any evidence. It then goes on to say "The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee’s report on the agreement concluded it was unlikely that food produced to lower animal welfare standards would be imported into the UK". That's affirmation that standards will not be lowered. We don't restrict the import of products that were produced using non-permitted pesticides. The only reason they are banned here is because of their effects on wildlife, not because they are dangerous to health. If the Australians are happy to damage their own wildlife, that doesn't affect food standards here. What does ‘unlikely’ mean? It means that it is not likely that sub-standard produce will reach UK shores. Some may be sent illegally, but the same problem is present with any trading partner. What does affirmation mean? It means that the committee's findings affirm what I was saying, that not only must our standards be met, but that they will be enforced, so that it is unlikely sub-standard produce will ever arrive here. And they use neonicotinoids, do they not? What impact might that have on our bee population, for example? None whatsoever. Neonicotinoids are organic compounds that break down in nature. They won't be present in the food products imported to the UK. Spraying them on Australian crops is a problem for Australia, not the UK. What about paraquat? Is that hazardous? No. Again, spraying it is hazardous, but that would happen in Australia. Use of paraquat is all but undetectable in food products. If we considered it hazardous, we could simply make a new law saying that it must not be present at any detectable level, and then the Australians would have to stop using it on crops intended for UK export. I thought we were ensuring that other nations brought their standards up to match ours? Isn’t that what you said? We do indeed have higher standards than Australia, and we are insisting that Australia follows those higher standards if they want to export their produce to the UK. "Paraquat, when ingested, is extremely toxic. It causes a spectrum of complications including acute respiratory distress syndrome, renal failure, hepatotoxicity, and pulmonary fibrosis. The clinical course in paraquat poisoning is often protracted and there is no known antidote for this toxin." Yummy I cannot see many people drinking paraquat as it is deadly. Weed control is essential for maintaining farmland, gardens and public amenities . We do not need EU relations to control it. The EU attempted to ban glgphosphate. My father used parquat regularly and lived to a good old age . Anyone with common sense knows it is dangerous in the wrong circumstances. I order glyphos from a commercial supplier and simply wear a mask , gloves and eye protection when using it. Parquat and Glyphosate have made lives a lot easier for gardeners , farmers and local authorities. " Do you understand how important bees and other pollinators are? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems that you haven't read your own quote. It says that some groups have expressed concerns, not that they produced any evidence. It then goes on to say "The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee’s report on the agreement concluded it was unlikely that food produced to lower animal welfare standards would be imported into the UK". That's affirmation that standards will not be lowered. We don't restrict the import of products that were produced using non-permitted pesticides. The only reason they are banned here is because of their effects on wildlife, not because they are dangerous to health. If the Australians are happy to damage their own wildlife, that doesn't affect food standards here. What does ‘unlikely’ mean? It means that it is not likely that sub-standard produce will reach UK shores. Some may be sent illegally, but the same problem is present with any trading partner. What does affirmation mean? It means that the committee's findings affirm what I was saying, that not only must our standards be met, but that they will be enforced, so that it is unlikely sub-standard produce will ever arrive here. And they use neonicotinoids, do they not? What impact might that have on our bee population, for example? None whatsoever. Neonicotinoids are organic compounds that break down in nature. They won't be present in the food products imported to the UK. Spraying them on Australian crops is a problem for Australia, not the UK. What about paraquat? Is that hazardous? No. Again, spraying it is hazardous, but that would happen in Australia. Use of paraquat is all but undetectable in food products. If we considered it hazardous, we could simply make a new law saying that it must not be present at any detectable level, and then the Australians would have to stop using it on crops intended for UK export. I thought we were ensuring that other nations brought their standards up to match ours? Isn’t that what you said? We do indeed have higher standards than Australia, and we are insisting that Australia follows those higher standards if they want to export their produce to the UK. "Paraquat, when ingested, is extremely toxic. It causes a spectrum of complications including acute respiratory distress syndrome, renal failure, hepatotoxicity, and pulmonary fibrosis. The clinical course in paraquat poisoning is often protracted and there is no known antidote for this toxin." Yummy I cannot see many people drinking paraquat as it is deadly. Weed control is essential for maintaining farmland, gardens and public amenities . We do not need EU relations to control it. The EU attempted to ban glgphosphate. My father used parquat regularly and lived to a good old age . Anyone with common sense knows it is dangerous in the wrong circumstances. I order glyphos from a commercial supplier and simply wear a mask , gloves and eye protection when using it. Parquat and Glyphosate have made lives a lot easier for gardeners , farmers and local authorities. Do you understand how important bees and other pollinators are? " . Why would I not. ? I have meadow gardens in my houses. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Paraquat, when ingested, is extremely toxic. It causes a spectrum of complications including acute respiratory distress syndrome, renal failure, hepatotoxicity, and pulmonary fibrosis. The clinical course in paraquat poisoning is often protracted and there is no known antidote for this toxin." Yummy It certainly is horrible stuff, and I wouldn't want to be near an Australian farm where they were spraying it. But since it isn't present in the food products they ship over here, I don't see a problem." Earlier on you mentioned it was, "all but undetectable", means it is there, and detectable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems that you haven't read your own quote. It says that some groups have expressed concerns, not that they produced any evidence. It then goes on to say "The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee’s report on the agreement concluded it was unlikely that food produced to lower animal welfare standards would be imported into the UK". That's affirmation that standards will not be lowered. We don't restrict the import of products that were produced using non-permitted pesticides. The only reason they are banned here is because of their effects on wildlife, not because they are dangerous to health. If the Australians are happy to damage their own wildlife, that doesn't affect food standards here. What does ‘unlikely’ mean? It means that it is not likely that sub-standard produce will reach UK shores. Some may be sent illegally, but the same problem is present with any trading partner. What does affirmation mean? It means that the committee's findings affirm what I was saying, that not only must our standards be met, but that they will be enforced, so that it is unlikely sub-standard produce will ever arrive here. And they use neonicotinoids, do they not? What impact might that have on our bee population, for example? None whatsoever. Neonicotinoids are organic compounds that break down in nature. They won't be present in the food products imported to the UK. Spraying them on Australian crops is a problem for Australia, not the UK. What about paraquat? Is that hazardous? No. Again, spraying it is hazardous, but that would happen in Australia. Use of paraquat is all but undetectable in food products. If we considered it hazardous, we could simply make a new law saying that it must not be present at any detectable level, and then the Australians would have to stop using it on crops intended for UK export. I thought we were ensuring that other nations brought their standards up to match ours? Isn’t that what you said? We do indeed have higher standards than Australia, and we are insisting that Australia follows those higher standards if they want to export their produce to the UK. "Paraquat, when ingested, is extremely toxic. It causes a spectrum of complications including acute respiratory distress syndrome, renal failure, hepatotoxicity, and pulmonary fibrosis. The clinical course in paraquat poisoning is often protracted and there is no known antidote for this toxin." Yummy I cannot see many people drinking paraquat as it is deadly. Weed control is essential for maintaining farmland, gardens and public amenities . We do not need EU relations to control it. The EU attempted to ban glgphosphate. My father used parquat regularly and lived to a good old age . Anyone with common sense knows it is dangerous in the wrong circumstances. I order glyphos from a commercial supplier and simply wear a mask , gloves and eye protection when using it. Parquat and Glyphosate have made lives a lot easier for gardeners , farmers and local authorities. Do you understand how important bees and other pollinators are? . Why would I not. ? I have meadow gardens in my houses. " And yet you’re in favour of trade deals involving foodstuffs that utilise pesticides that kill pollinators? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Weed control is essential ... We do not need EU relations to control it. The EU attempted to ban glgphosphate." Well, it was the European Parliament that wanted a total ban on glyphosate killer. But in this case the vote of the European Parliament was advisory and not binding. The UK's George Eustice was one of the national government farm ministers who voted to keep on allowing glyphosate. But the worst ingredients have been banned by the EU, following a proposal by the European Commission. The reason for dealing with farm chemicals at the European level is because it is a product that is sold across borders. Giving farmers a predictable reasonable living is easier to do at a European level, rather than just at the national level. That's why there's a European Environment Agency, and a European Chemicals Agency, and a European Food Safety Agency. There's also, come to think of it, an EU agency that deals in the intellectual property in plant seeds. It's the European Plant Variety Office. That's why farm support and agriculture is covered in the EU treaties. It's *possible* at a national level, but some of it is better done at a European level, and that's the reason why. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Paraquat, when ingested, is extremely toxic. It causes a spectrum of complications including acute respiratory distress syndrome, renal failure, hepatotoxicity, and pulmonary fibrosis. The clinical course in paraquat poisoning is often protracted and there is no known antidote for this toxin." Yummy It certainly is horrible stuff, and I wouldn't want to be near an Australian farm where they were spraying it. But since it isn't present in the food products they ship over here, I don't see a problem." Being an Australian farmer sounds a perilous occupation and not great news for their local wildlife either | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems that you haven't read your own quote. It says that some groups have expressed concerns, not that they produced any evidence. It then goes on to say "The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee’s report on the agreement concluded it was unlikely that food produced to lower animal welfare standards would be imported into the UK". That's affirmation that standards will not be lowered. We don't restrict the import of products that were produced using non-permitted pesticides. The only reason they are banned here is because of their effects on wildlife, not because they are dangerous to health. If the Australians are happy to damage their own wildlife, that doesn't affect food standards here. What does ‘unlikely’ mean? It means that it is not likely that sub-standard produce will reach UK shores. Some may be sent illegally, but the same problem is present with any trading partner. What does affirmation mean? It means that the committee's findings affirm what I was saying, that not only must our standards be met, but that they will be enforced, so that it is unlikely sub-standard produce will ever arrive here. And they use neonicotinoids, do they not? What impact might that have on our bee population, for example? None whatsoever. Neonicotinoids are organic compounds that break down in nature. They won't be present in the food products imported to the UK. Spraying them on Australian crops is a problem for Australia, not the UK. What about paraquat? Is that hazardous? No. Again, spraying it is hazardous, but that would happen in Australia. Use of paraquat is all but undetectable in food products. If we considered it hazardous, we could simply make a new law saying that it must not be present at any detectable level, and then the Australians would have to stop using it on crops intended for UK export. I thought we were ensuring that other nations brought their standards up to match ours? Isn’t that what you said? We do indeed have higher standards than Australia, and we are insisting that Australia follows those higher standards if they want to export their produce to the UK. "Paraquat, when ingested, is extremely toxic. It causes a spectrum of complications including acute respiratory distress syndrome, renal failure, hepatotoxicity, and pulmonary fibrosis. The clinical course in paraquat poisoning is often protracted and there is no known antidote for this toxin." Yummy I cannot see many people drinking paraquat as it is deadly. Weed control is essential for maintaining farmland, gardens and public amenities . We do not need EU relations to control it. The EU attempted to ban glgphosphate. My father used parquat regularly and lived to a good old age . Anyone with common sense knows it is dangerous in the wrong circumstances. I order glyphos from a commercial supplier and simply wear a mask , gloves and eye protection when using it. Parquat and Glyphosate have made lives a lot easier for gardeners , farmers and local authorities. Do you understand how important bees and other pollinators are? . Why would I not. ? I have meadow gardens in my houses. And yet you’re in favour of trade deals involving foodstuffs that utilise pesticides that kill pollinators?" . Just using common sense. I cannot see many farmers wanting to a forty acre field by hand. . There would be no food to harvest . I kept commercial packs of Glyfos plus a special killer for killing mayors tail. I just use common sense . Gloves, mask , eye protection. I also make sure it does not drift . There are bees in all my gardens as I keep parts of them as meadow gardens. The seed is very expensive but you get a stunning result. Glyphos is a salvation for farmers and gardeners . A stunning invention | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"escape from federalism... Heath conned us into the then 'common market'. Thatcher's "NO, NO NO..!"... Absurd. Don't want to take part in a federal Europe? Simply don't sign a treaty to that effect. There's no compulsion. Besides, I asked the former MEP Judith Bunting about that. She replied that in all her time in the European Parliament, "not one person ever mentioned a federal Europe". Edward Heath was upfront about it. There was no secret. He said it was a big step which will change our country, we should, indeed must, play our part". That was followed by a referendum in 1975 that was convincingly in favour of being in the EEC (and Euratom, the European Atomic Energy Community). Thatcher said, "Britain does not break treaties". Otherwise it would be a "disaster. Jobs would be at risk. No-one but the Russians would be pleased". Thatcher was criticised by Geoffrey Howe for risking isolation in Europe. He said her "finger wagging" was not a good idea. Howe said "she seems to look out upon a Continent that is positively teeming with ill-intentioned people... What kind of attitude is that, for our business people... or for all the young people of today?"" ********************************* You say 'absurd', that's your opinion. I don't believe any intelligent person could not see what the ultimate goal of the Europeans was, and, I really don't credit what this MEP may or may not have said. If...., she did indeed inforrm you that...., "not one person ever mentioned a federal Europe"...., during her time there, she either misunderstood the question or was telling an untruth. All settled now, so the point is moot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" what the ultimate goal of the Europeans was... All settled now" Who's afraid of ever closer union? There's no need to be. A group of 9 or more countries can choose to work together more closely under Enhanced Cooperation. For instance, there's "Enhanced cooperation on matrimonial and registered partnership property issues". Settled? I don't think so. It's no more settled than the unhappy people from the rest of Europe in the UK who, shamefully, have been made to apply for the awful so-called "pre-settled" or "settled status". Now, the UK doesn't want to miss out after all and has asked to take part in EU Pesco defence cooperation. The UK is still trying to avoid bringing in the border checks on things like Danish butter, that it's supposed to. But the UK is not properly in the European Rapid Alert System on Food and Feed. The lack of data from the RASFF is putting farms at risk by increasing the danger of the spead of disease. Stopping farm diseases is one of the things that every EU country wants. That's one of the jobs that the EU institutions help to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"everyone was entitled to an opinion and vote " Unfortunately not. One of the biggest scandals is that EU citizens in the UK were DENIED A VOTE in 2016 on their own future. Imagine coming to the UK in good faith, to a fellow EU country. A rather strange EU country, that isn't in the euro currency or in Schengen, but still an EU country. Imagine starting a family and bringing up your children here - and then being DENIED A VOTE about the very thing that your whole life in the UK is based upon. Not only denied a vote, but even being told, your voice counts for less, or maybe even not at all. British abroad more than 15 years were also denied a vote. At one of the rallies in London, I heard of a Brit who had flown in from Greece to protest because he didn't get a vote. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Paraquat, when ingested, is extremely toxic. It causes a spectrum of complications including acute respiratory distress syndrome, renal failure, hepatotoxicity, and pulmonary fibrosis. The clinical course in paraquat poisoning is often protracted and there is no known antidote for this toxin." Yummy" "It certainly is horrible stuff, and I wouldn't want to be near an Australian farm where they were spraying it. But since it isn't present in the food products they ship over here, I don't see a problem." "Earlier on you mentioned it was, "all but undetectable", means it is there, and detectable." I was trying to be accurate, without overburdening with explanation. Recent advances in mass spectroscopy mean that miniscule quantities of a substance can now be detected in a mass of other stuff. Half a dozen molecules of paraquat can be detected by machines, but such a tiny amount will have no detectable effect on any living organism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" what the ultimate goal of the Europeans was... All settled now Who's afraid of ever closer union? There's no need to be. A group of 9 or more countries can choose to work together more closely under Enhanced Cooperation. For instance, there's "Enhanced cooperation on matrimonial and registered partnership property issues". Settled? I don't think so. It's no more settled than the unhappy people from the rest of Europe in the UK who, shamefully, have been made to apply for the awful so-called "pre-settled" or "settled status". Now, the UK doesn't want to miss out after all and has asked to take part in EU Pesco defence cooperation. The UK is still trying to avoid bringing in the border checks on things like Danish butter, that it's supposed to. But the UK is not properly in the European Rapid Alert System on Food and Feed. The lack of data from the RASFF is putting farms at risk by increasing the danger of the spead of disease. Stopping farm diseases is one of the things that every EU country wants. That's one of the jobs that the EU institutions help to do." ********************************** You unfortunately have misunderstood me but, maybe I didn't spell it out quite as much as required...... I am certainly NOT afraid of "ever closer union". In my own mind I always shall be the person I was born and no law, declaration or government of any persuasion can tell me orherwise as I never have been 'European'. The fact we have left the E.U. is a welcome but irrelevant situation as far as concerns my close friends and myself. I actually foresaw the UK breaking free from Europe long before the 2016 vote. Many others saw the inevitable result which years of 'harmonisation' had created but, this was just part of a much bigger picture which, thankfully, has now been taken down and kicked firmly into room 101.....! (Lighthearted comments are allowed...??!) Britain shall prevail, I have no doubt whatever. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's amazing how so many people were taken in on a sustained campaign of untruths. An independent referendum commission should have been formed to provide sound, safe and unbiased information which the public could make their own decision. A Web of lies and narrow self interest by some politicians convinced enough people. The outworkings are seen today. These people can't bring themselves to tell the electorate that they were mislead. These same ones benefitted financially while the ordinary person is struggling. What a mess. Tories should be banished from electoral office. " "It's amazing how so many people were taken in on a sustained campaign of untruths" Which campaign? Leave or Remain? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"EU Commissioners hold sway over the approx 450 million people in the EU. Van Rompuy, Junker, Barnier, von de Leyen and the rest of the boys in the band. Which ballot paper did they appear on that we could put an x against? Who gave them their power?; Who were they accountable to?; On whose behalf did they exercise their power?;How could we get rid of them? Democratic defecit perhaps? " You could say the same about our Govt … | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit? Surely we need to judge this in 20 years time when we are allowed to decide if it was a success or not? I'm happy to accept your proposal. I'll wait 20 years to discuss whether standards have fallen, if you wait 20 years before claiming that Brexit was definitely a bad idea. Oh no it definitely was a bad idea. All we’re doing now is collecting the evidence
Bit strange that you only want to wait when it suits
In the meantime, fancy answering...
How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit?
I don’t recall making a claim that any had, did I?
The poster was right to point out that there is that potential though. After all, if we weren’t interested in regulatory divergence, why would we have left in the first place?
Our government aren't free to do anything though are they? We have a HoP and HoL that any proposals must go through.
Was the poster still righ to point out that there is the potential that our 'Govt are free to do xyz'?
I accept that parliament should have been the phrase used, but I don’t think that’s the point being made here, is it?
The point as I see it is that the EU had minimum standards that we needed to adhere to. We could always have had higher standards.
So when we talk about regulatory divergence and standards, what’s the only direction we can go in that wasn’t possible as a member?
I think when we speak of regulatory standards we can only judge the parliament of the day. So far, as far as I'm aware, no standards have been lowered so it's a moot point.
You're aware that there is potential for the EU to lower standards to aren't you?"Err, yes. The trade deals since Brexit have effectively lowered food standards as checks and standards on imported foods are removed. These trade deals are a removal of democratic rights. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's amazing how so many people were taken in on a sustained campaign of untruths. An independent referendum commission should have been formed to provide sound, safe and unbiased information which the public could make their own decision. A Web of lies and narrow self interest by some politicians convinced enough people. The outworkings are seen today. These people can't bring themselves to tell the electorate that they were mislead. These same ones benefitted financially while the ordinary person is struggling. What a mess. Tories should be banished from electoral office. " Your post is an insult to the electorate and ordinary working people. Most people believe in democracy. After the referendum was announced all parties and bodies had endless opportunities to present their case. The various campaigns were published on the news daily. The public used all the facts and opinions available to them and voted accordingly. The only problem we have is that some people and MPs refused to accept the results of a democratic vote . These people are responsible for both damage to the economy and delaying the UK of taking full advantage of life outside the UK . At least Boris Johnson believed in democracy and taking into consideration the views of every working person . The woke loving liberal elite have no respect for those whose opinion differs to theirs . At least democracy won in the end . Last time I checked Boris won with an 80 seat majority | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's amazing how so many people were taken in on a sustained campaign of untruths. An independent referendum commission should have been formed to provide sound, safe and unbiased information which the public could make their own decision. A Web of lies and narrow self interest by some politicians convinced enough people. The outworkings are seen today. These people can't bring themselves to tell the electorate that they were mislead. These same ones benefitted financially while the ordinary person is struggling. What a mess. Tories should be banished from electoral office. Your post is an insult to the electorate and ordinary working people. Most people believe in democracy. After the referendum was announced all parties and bodies had endless opportunities to present their case. The various campaigns were published on the news daily. The public used all the facts and opinions available to them and voted accordingly. The only problem we have is that some people and MPs refused to accept the results of a democratic vote . These people are responsible for both damage to the economy and delaying the UK of taking full advantage of life outside the UK . At least Boris Johnson believed in democracy and taking into consideration the views of every working person . The woke loving liberal elite have no respect for those whose opinion differs to theirs . At least democracy won in the end . Last time I checked Boris won with an 80 seat majority " You need some new material Pat. All getting a bit stale  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit? Surely we need to judge this in 20 years time when we are allowed to decide if it was a success or not? I'm happy to accept your proposal. I'll wait 20 years to discuss whether standards have fallen, if you wait 20 years before claiming that Brexit was definitely a bad idea. Oh no it definitely was a bad idea. All we’re doing now is collecting the evidence
Bit strange that you only want to wait when it suits
In the meantime, fancy answering...
How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit?
I don’t recall making a claim that any had, did I?
The poster was right to point out that there is that potential though. After all, if we weren’t interested in regulatory divergence, why would we have left in the first place?
Our government aren't free to do anything though are they? We have a HoP and HoL that any proposals must go through.
Was the poster still righ to point out that there is the potential that our 'Govt are free to do xyz'?
I accept that parliament should have been the phrase used, but I don’t think that’s the point being made here, is it?
The point as I see it is that the EU had minimum standards that we needed to adhere to. We could always have had higher standards.
So when we talk about regulatory divergence and standards, what’s the only direction we can go in that wasn’t possible as a member?
I think when we speak of regulatory standards we can only judge the parliament of the day. So far, as far as I'm aware, no standards have been lowered so it's a moot point.
You're aware that there is potential for the EU to lower standards to aren't you?
Err, yes. The trade deals since Brexit have effectively lowered food standards as checks and standards on imported foods are removed. These trade deals are a removal of democratic rights. "I might have misunderstood, but think what they are saying is the EU can lower their own minimum standards too. Which in turn would allow member states to lower theirs if they wanted to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's amazing how so many people were taken in on a sustained campaign of untruths. An independent referendum commission should have been formed to provide sound, safe and unbiased information which the public could make their own decision. A Web of lies and narrow self interest by some politicians convinced enough people. The outworkings are seen today. These people can't bring themselves to tell the electorate that they were mislead. These same ones benefitted financially while the ordinary person is struggling. What a mess. Tories should be banished from electoral office. Your post is an insult to the electorate and ordinary working people. Most people believe in democracy. After the referendum was announced all parties and bodies had endless opportunities to present their case. The various campaigns were published on the news daily. The public used all the facts and opinions available to them and voted accordingly. The only problem we have is that some people and MPs refused to accept the results of a democratic vote . These people are responsible for both damage to the economy and delaying the UK of taking full advantage of life outside the UK . At least Boris Johnson believed in democracy and taking into consideration the views of every working person . The woke loving liberal elite have no respect for those whose opinion differs to theirs . At least democracy won in the end . Last time I checked Boris won with an 80 seat majority You need some new material Pat. All getting a bit stale ". Why would anyone need new material. ? The truth hurts . No rational person us going to spend their spare time searching for new material on a topic such as this . It is on display from a variety of different sources. A win is a win regardless of how it is presented. Only a few people spend their spare time making endless posts on these forums. Others are our in the real world seeing what is happening on a daily basis . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's amazing how so many people were taken in on a sustained campaign of untruths. An independent referendum commission should have been formed to provide sound, safe and unbiased information which the public could make their own decision. A Web of lies and narrow self interest by some politicians convinced enough people. The outworkings are seen today. These people can't bring themselves to tell the electorate that they were mislead. These same ones benefitted financially while the ordinary person is struggling. What a mess. Tories should be banished from electoral office. Your post is an insult to the electorate and ordinary working people. Most people believe in democracy. After the referendum was announced all parties and bodies had endless opportunities to present their case. The various campaigns were published on the news daily. The public used all the facts and opinions available to them and voted accordingly. The only problem we have is that some people and MPs refused to accept the results of a democratic vote . These people are responsible for both damage to the economy and delaying the UK of taking full advantage of life outside the UK . At least Boris Johnson believed in democracy and taking into consideration the views of every working person . The woke loving liberal elite have no respect for those whose opinion differs to theirs . At least democracy won in the end . Last time I checked Boris won with an 80 seat majority You need some new material Pat. All getting a bit stale . Why would anyone need new material. ? The truth hurts . No rational person us going to spend their spare time searching for new material on a topic such as this . It is on display from a variety of different sources. A win is a win regardless of how it is presented. Only a few people spend their spare time making endless posts on these forums. Others are our in the real world seeing what is happening on a daily basis ."No Pat this is also your usual rebuttal too! You were doing so well as Cheshire but are now back in Haymaker territory. We expect better from you Pat | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit? Surely we need to judge this in 20 years time when we are allowed to decide if it was a success or not? I'm happy to accept your proposal. I'll wait 20 years to discuss whether standards have fallen, if you wait 20 years before claiming that Brexit was definitely a bad idea. Oh no it definitely was a bad idea. All we’re doing now is collecting the evidence
Bit strange that you only want to wait when it suits
In the meantime, fancy answering...
How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit?
I don’t recall making a claim that any had, did I?
The poster was right to point out that there is that potential though. After all, if we weren’t interested in regulatory divergence, why would we have left in the first place?
Our government aren't free to do anything though are they? We have a HoP and HoL that any proposals must go through.
Was the poster still righ to point out that there is the potential that our 'Govt are free to do xyz'?
I accept that parliament should have been the phrase used, but I don’t think that’s the point being made here, is it?
The point as I see it is that the EU had minimum standards that we needed to adhere to. We could always have had higher standards.
So when we talk about regulatory divergence and standards, what’s the only direction we can go in that wasn’t possible as a member?
I think when we speak of regulatory standards we can only judge the parliament of the day. So far, as far as I'm aware, no standards have been lowered so it's a moot point.
You're aware that there is potential for the EU to lower standards to aren't you?
Err, yes. The trade deals since Brexit have effectively lowered food standards as checks and standards on imported foods are removed. These trade deals are a removal of democratic rights.
I might have misunderstood, but think what they are saying is the EU can lower their own minimum standards too. Which in turn would allow member states to lower theirs if they wanted to. "You didn't misunderstand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit? Surely we need to judge this in 20 years time when we are allowed to decide if it was a success or not? I'm happy to accept your proposal. I'll wait 20 years to discuss whether standards have fallen, if you wait 20 years before claiming that Brexit was definitely a bad idea. Oh no it definitely was a bad idea. All we’re doing now is collecting the evidence
Bit strange that you only want to wait when it suits
In the meantime, fancy answering...
How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit?
I don’t recall making a claim that any had, did I?
The poster was right to point out that there is that potential though. After all, if we weren’t interested in regulatory divergence, why would we have left in the first place?
Our government aren't free to do anything though are they? We have a HoP and HoL that any proposals must go through.
Was the poster still righ to point out that there is the potential that our 'Govt are free to do xyz'?
I accept that parliament should have been the phrase used, but I don’t think that’s the point being made here, is it?
The point as I see it is that the EU had minimum standards that we needed to adhere to. We could always have had higher standards.
So when we talk about regulatory divergence and standards, what’s the only direction we can go in that wasn’t possible as a member?
I think when we speak of regulatory standards we can only judge the parliament of the day. So far, as far as I'm aware, no standards have been lowered so it's a moot point.
You're aware that there is potential for the EU to lower standards to aren't you?
Err, yes. The trade deals since Brexit have effectively lowered food standards as checks and standards on imported foods are removed. These trade deals are a removal of democratic rights.
I might have misunderstood, but think what they are saying is the EU can lower their own minimum standards too. Which in turn would allow member states to lower theirs if they wanted to. "Which is the same as saying member states can have higher standards than the EU, and as such deciding to leave the bloc for ‘regularity divergence’ was, is, and always will be utter bollocks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brexit keeps the UK out of the EU's Migrant Relocation Scheme whereby specified numbers of migrants must be accepted or a hefty charge paid to the EU (essentially a a fine). No matter an individual government nor it's citizens might disagree with the policy. This is the EU, so their word prevails over all. " Seems like a sensible policy, if only we were in the EU. Sounds like it could cut down on the illegal channel crossings that people seem so worried about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brexit keeps the UK out of the EU's Migrant Relocation Scheme whereby specified numbers of migrants must be accepted or a hefty charge paid to the EU (essentially a a fine). No matter an individual government nor it's citizens might disagree with the policy. This is the EU, so their word prevails over all. Seems like a sensible policy, if only we were in the EU. Sounds like it could cut down on the illegal channel crossings that people seem so worried about. " How would it cut down on the illegal channel crossings? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brexit keeps the UK out of the EU's Migrant Relocation Scheme whereby specified numbers of migrants must be accepted or a hefty charge paid to the EU (essentially a a fine). No matter an individual government nor it's citizens might disagree with the policy. This is the EU, so their word prevails over all. " Which is going to get rather interesting in Poland, as it will hold a referendum on the subject on October 15th. Basically, asking the population if they will accept a quota of migrants, as determined by the EU. All part of the continued pushback by Poland against the EU, who the ruling Goverment see as being influenced by Germany. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brexit keeps the UK out of the EU's Migrant Relocation Scheme whereby specified numbers of migrants must be accepted or a hefty charge paid to the EU (essentially a a fine). No matter an individual government nor it's citizens might disagree with the policy. This is the EU, so their word prevails over all. Seems like a sensible policy, if only we were in the EU. Sounds like it could cut down on the illegal channel crossings that people seem so worried about. How would it cut down on the illegal channel crossings?" By providing a legal route into the UK | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brexit keeps the UK out of the EU's Migrant Relocation Scheme whereby specified numbers of migrants must be accepted or a hefty charge paid to the EU (essentially a a fine). No matter an individual government nor it's citizens might disagree with the policy. This is the EU, so their word prevails over all. Seems like a sensible policy, if only we were in the EU. Sounds like it could cut down on the illegal channel crossings that people seem so worried about. How would it cut down on the illegal channel crossings? By providing a legal route into the UK " What would the people do that know they are not going to pass the legal route checks? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brexit keeps the UK out of the EU's Migrant Relocation Scheme whereby specified numbers of migrants must be accepted or a hefty charge paid to the EU (essentially a a fine). No matter an individual government nor it's citizens might disagree with the policy. This is the EU, so their word prevails over all. Seems like a sensible policy, if only we were in the EU. Sounds like it could cut down on the illegal channel crossings that people seem so worried about. How would it cut down on the illegal channel crossings? By providing a legal route into the UK What would the people do that know they are not going to pass the legal route checks? " No idea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brexit keeps the UK out of the EU's Migrant Relocation Scheme whereby specified numbers of migrants must be accepted or a hefty charge paid to the EU (essentially a a fine). No matter an individual government nor it's citizens might disagree with the policy. This is the EU, so their word prevails over all. Seems like a sensible policy, if only we were in the EU. Sounds like it could cut down on the illegal channel crossings that people seem so worried about. How would it cut down on the illegal channel crossings? By providing a legal route into the UK " Not a chance. Any migrant knowing their asylum chances are poor will still go for illegal entry. These are economic migrants not asylum seekers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brexit keeps the UK out of the EU's Migrant Relocation Scheme whereby specified numbers of migrants must be accepted or a hefty charge paid to the EU (essentially a a fine). No matter an individual government nor it's citizens might disagree with the policy. This is the EU, so their word prevails over all. Seems like a sensible policy, if only we were in the EU. Sounds like it could cut down on the illegal channel crossings that people seem so worried about. How would it cut down on the illegal channel crossings? By providing a legal route into the UK Not a chance. Any migrant knowing their asylum chances are poor will still go for illegal entry. These are economic migrants not asylum seekers." If they're not asylum seekers, they won't be granted asylum. Sorted. The EU scheme seems excellent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brexit keeps the UK out of the EU's Migrant Relocation Scheme whereby specified numbers of migrants must be accepted or a hefty charge paid to the EU (essentially a a fine). No matter an individual government nor it's citizens might disagree with the policy. This is the EU, so their word prevails over all. Seems like a sensible policy, if only we were in the EU. Sounds like it could cut down on the illegal channel crossings that people seem so worried about. How would it cut down on the illegal channel crossings? By providing a legal route into the UK Not a chance. Any migrant knowing their asylum chances are poor will still go for illegal entry. These are economic migrants not asylum seekers." Prior to their case being heard, they are all asylum seekers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course our government is now free to remove workers rights, environmental protections and safety standards now that we no longer have to EU to protect us. How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit? Surely we need to judge this in 20 years time when we are allowed to decide if it was a success or not? I'm happy to accept your proposal. I'll wait 20 years to discuss whether standards have fallen, if you wait 20 years before claiming that Brexit was definitely a bad idea. Oh no it definitely was a bad idea. All we’re doing now is collecting the evidence
Bit strange that you only want to wait when it suits
In the meantime, fancy answering...
How many workers rights, environmental protections, and safety standards have been removed in the 3.5 years since Brexit?
I don’t recall making a claim that any had, did I?
The poster was right to point out that there is that potential though. After all, if we weren’t interested in regulatory divergence, why would we have left in the first place?
Our government aren't free to do anything though are they? We have a HoP and HoL that any proposals must go through.
Was the poster still righ to point out that there is the potential that our 'Govt are free to do xyz'?
I accept that parliament should have been the phrase used, but I don’t think that’s the point being made here, is it?
The point as I see it is that the EU had minimum standards that we needed to adhere to. We could always have had higher standards.
So when we talk about regulatory divergence and standards, what’s the only direction we can go in that wasn’t possible as a member?
I think when we speak of regulatory standards we can only judge the parliament of the day. So far, as far as I'm aware, no standards have been lowered so it's a moot point.
You're aware that there is potential for the EU to lower standards to aren't you?
Err, yes. The trade deals since Brexit have effectively lowered food standards as checks and standards on imported foods are removed. These trade deals are a removal of democratic rights.
I might have misunderstood, but think what they are saying is the EU can lower their own minimum standards too. Which in turn would allow member states to lower theirs if they wanted to.
Which is the same as saying member states can have higher standards than the EU, and as such deciding to leave the bloc for ‘regularity divergence’ was, is, and always will be utter bollocks."No, I know member states can have higher standards just like the UK did. But further up it was claimed that standards can only go up, which is false, because the EU can lower standards and members can follow suit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funnily enough no 1 replied to my response on the last thread. " Maybe that is because you only ask questions but never answer them! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funnily enough no 1 replied to my response on the last thread. Maybe that is because you only ask questions but never answer them!" I always answer questions. I think you have me mistaken for a left winger | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funnily enough no 1 replied to my response on the last thread. Maybe that is because you only ask questions but never answer them! I always answer questions. I think you have me mistaken for a left winger" You really don’t | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Brexit idea, the big problem is we have utterly inept incompetent self serving politicians and civil service If they wanted to make it work and wanted to do the job they sought office to do there is no obstacle to it working More countries in the world are outside of the EU than in it they seem to trade perfectly well " ****************************** Yes, but all the 'Fab Experts' on here know different.....(!) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funnily enough no 1 replied to my response on the last thread. Maybe that is because you only ask questions but never answer them! I always answer questions. I think you have me mistaken for a left winger You really don’t "Sorry. But I do. Everything some one asks me a question I will always try and answer. I don't delete my account, I don't disappear for several weeks like some cough cough(easyuk) Which questions do you feel I never answered? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funnily enough no 1 replied to my response on the last thread. Maybe that is because you only ask questions but never answer them! I always answer questions. I think you have me mistaken for a left winger You really don’t
Sorry. But I do. Everything some one asks me a question I will always try and answer. I don't delete my account, I don't disappear for several weeks like some cough cough(easyuk)
Which questions do you feel I never answered?
"Across multiple threads and numerous posts you frequently avoid answering questions and will almost always just continue asking your questions. I’m not going to scour the threads to prove it. I may just start pointing it out to you going forward. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Brexit idea, the big problem is we have utterly inept incompetent self serving politicians and civil service If they wanted to make it work and wanted to do the job they sought office to do there is no obstacle to it working More countries in the world are outside of the EU than in it they seem to trade perfectly well " They have largely achieved the goals of brexit. Disaster capitalists made millions. Those who wish to keep their off shore tax avoidance schemes can do so. Removal of environmental protections, workers protections, safety standards etc pending. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funnily enough no 1 replied to my response on the last thread. Maybe that is because you only ask questions but never answer them! I always answer questions. I think you have me mistaken for a left winger You really don’t
Sorry. But I do. Everything some one asks me a question I will always try and answer. I don't delete my account, I don't disappear for several weeks like some cough cough(easyuk)
Which questions do you feel I never answered?
Across multiple threads and numerous posts you frequently avoid answering questions and will almost always just continue asking your questions. I’m not going to scour the threads to prove it. I may just start pointing it out to you going forward."I will often refuse to newer questions u till.mine have been answered. As I got bored of individuals on here who constantly asked me questions that I answered but never had the grace to answer mine. Feel free to highlight any question you feel I neveranswered and say which thread and I'll go back to that thread and assess. If I ask a question. I expect mine too cruelly be answered without the other person asking theirs and giving no reply to mine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" More countries in the world are outside of the EU than in it they seem to trade perfectly well " Which ones have left massive trade blocs and started over from scratch? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" More countries in the world are outside of the EU than in it they seem to trade perfectly well Which ones have left massive trade blocs and started over from scratch? " Iceland did exactly this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" More countries in the world are outside of the EU than in it they seem to trade perfectly well Which ones have left massive trade blocs and started over from scratch? Iceland did exactly this." Did they- what trade bloc? Can you support that statement with some fact? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Brexit idea" Sorry, it is totally awful and heartbreaking idea. To abandon a peace project; to reject neighbours and allies; to put up barriers that did not exist before? To throw away decades of diplomatic progress? Regression, improverishment and pitiful isolation? No, thank you. There were tearful scenes in the European Parliament as respected British MEPs like Catherine Bearder, Molly Scott Cato, Richard Corbett and Seb Dance had to say goodbye to their colleagues. The government of Denmark was "ashen faced" the day after the referendum. The Irish Border Communities felt a "chill", according to its leader John Sheridan. All over the rest of Europe, British and locals alike were upset. So was Jean Claude Juncker, who was "sad" to lose the UK from the EU. "I am not a robot", he said. "I have feelings". EU citizens in the UK were astonished and upset. I know someone whose husband worked many years as a diplomat in Brussels. To see his life's work rejected broke her heart and her sons' hearts too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" More countries in the world are outside of the EU than in it they seem to trade perfectly well Which ones have left massive trade blocs and started over from scratch? Iceland did exactly this. Did they- what trade bloc? Can you support that statement with some fact?" My apologies it was Greenland chasing not to stay part of the EC. Iceland withdrew its request for e.u membership. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Iceland withdrew its request for e.u membership." Iceland is in the European Economic Area. Iceland has got EU freedom of movement which the Brits have confiscated from themselves. Iceland is in Schengen, so South Africans visiting Belgium with a Schengen visa can also go to Iceland with no more costs or paperwork. Not so for the Schengen refusnik UK. The fearful Brits preferred delays and queues instead of Schengen. How happy are they now with even more delays and queues? Iceland is in the European Free Trade Area that the UK helped to set up. The EFTA/EAA doesn't cover EU agriculture but there is an EU-Iceland deal on farm produce. One of the things that's covered is ram semen. Iceland isn't in the euro currency. No-euro Brits preferred obstructing themselves with exchange costs all the time. Portugal was in the EFTA but left to join the EEC instead. So did the UK. Yes, the UK left the EFTA to join the EEC and Euratom instead. Now the UK has got far less - apart from Northern Ireland that's partially exempt. No EFTA, no free movement, no Euratom, no EU, no customs union. Returning to our South Africans visiting Belgium: they can send a parcel to Turkey customs-charges-free but not to Stoke on Trent. Talk about self-immolation! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, Iceland is in a whole lot of EU projects as well. The University of Iceland got EU funding in 2021. And Iceland is in the EU Horizon science programme. Ooh!! What geniuses the British are! They handicap themselves with trade barriers. They cut off their neighbours' freedom of movement - and their own. (But they're still in a Common Travel Area with Ireland). They cost themselves far more than they paid into the EU budget. They cost themselves even more with no EU agencies to cut bureaucracy. They miss out a lot, but not completely, on security and health because they've smashed up their place in those things too. And now their island is surrounded by their own sewage." ******************************** Have ye finished.....??! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"frankly I would rather trust any EU politician over the ones we have" I agree. The European Council said it "regrets the situation. Any change must be orderly. Top 3 for negotiation: 1) Citizens' rights 2) Northern Ireland 3) Financial settlement" Number one - citizens' rights! The British gov even abandoned its own diplomats in Brussels. Only the European Commission looked out for them. Some Tory politicians forgot Northern Ireland. The EU didn't. Guy Verhofstat in the European Parliament, on the anti-EU campaigns: "What is so hard for me, is the way it succeeded". How much Guy Verhofstat spoke for me! Manfred Weber in the European Parliament: "Let me start with the words of a young man from Britain who said, 'We will never know the opportunities, the friends and the marriages that have been lost...'" Terry Reintke in the European Parliament is a friend of the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have ye finished.....??!" When the colossal shattering wrong has been righted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have ye finished.....??! When the colossal shattering wrong has been righted." ******************************* Oh dear...... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I always shall be the person I was born... 'harmonisation'... was just part of a much bigger picture... Britain shall prevail, I have no doubt whatever." Oh dear. This is a reason to lose membership of the EU? How tragic that a peace project should inspire such fear. There's no need for it. The EU stands for human dignity. It says so in article 2. No-one's ever tried to take anyone's identity away. How would a peace project succeed if it did? Far from it. The EU *protects* regional identities. That's what protected food names are for. Language learning is one of the things that the European Social Fund is for. Just because the EU means taking down barriers, and removing the unnecessary duplication of bureaucracy, doesn't mean that it's about making everyone the same. Far from it. By contrast, look at the world's actual oppressive regimes! How many political prisoners including women has the EU got, like Iran? Has the EU imposed one time zone across the whole Continent, like China, to suppress regional differences? Has the EU suppressed minority languages, like China has? How many 're-education' internment camps has the EU got, like the unfortunate Uyghurs in Xinjiang? I'm sorry to read this because it means the effort of the EU peace project has not always been understood. It's a tragedy. As for "Britain will prevail"? That sounds like over-confident and unrealistic thinking, to me. Prevail at what? Setting standards to avoid lead in the paint on children's pencils? The UK has attempted that with its costly and absurd UKCA scheme to duplicate the CE safety mark. The UK can replace EU standards for the world! No, the UK is too small. All UKCA has done is waste fortunes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I always shall be the person I was born... 'harmonisation'... was just part of a much bigger picture... Britain shall prevail, I have no doubt whatever. Oh dear. This is a reason to lose membership of the EU? How tragic that a peace project should inspire such fear. There's no need for it. The EU stands for human dignity. It says so in article 2. No-one's ever tried to take anyone's identity away. How would a peace project succeed if it did? Far from it. The EU *protects* regional identities. That's what protected food names are for. Language learning is one of the things that the European Social Fund is for. Just because the EU means taking down barriers, and removing the unnecessary duplication of bureaucracy, doesn't mean that it's about making everyone the same. Far from it. By contrast, look at the world's actual oppressive regimes! How many political prisoners including women has the EU got, like Iran? Has the EU imposed one time zone across the whole Continent, like China, to suppress regional differences? Has the EU suppressed minority languages, like China has? How many 're-education' internment camps has the EU got, like the unfortunate Uyghurs in Xinjiang? I'm sorry to read this because it means the effort of the EU peace project has not always been understood. It's a tragedy. As for "Britain will prevail"? That sounds like over-confident and unrealistic thinking, to me. Prevail at what? Setting standards to avoid lead in the paint on children's pencils? The UK has attempted that with its costly and absurd UKCA scheme to duplicate the CE safety mark. The UK can replace EU standards for the world! No, the UK is too small. All UKCA has done is waste fortunes." ****************************** Yawn. I'll leave you to it considering you cherry pick my posts to suit you barmy agenda. Good evening. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I always shall be the person I was born... 'harmonisation'... was just part of a much bigger picture... Britain shall prevail, I have no doubt whatever. Oh dear. This is a reason to lose membership of the EU? How tragic that a peace project should inspire such fear. There's no need for it. The EU stands for human dignity. It says so in article 2. No-one's ever tried to take anyone's identity away. How would a peace project succeed if it did? Far from it. The EU *protects* regional identities. That's what protected food names are for. Language learning is one of the things that the European Social Fund is for. Just because the EU means taking down barriers, and removing the unnecessary duplication of bureaucracy, doesn't mean that it's about making everyone the same. Far from it. By contrast, look at the world's actual oppressive regimes! How many political prisoners including women has the EU got, like Iran? Has the EU imposed one time zone across the whole Continent, like China, to suppress regional differences? Has the EU suppressed minority languages, like China has? How many 're-education' internment camps has the EU got, like the unfortunate Uyghurs in Xinjiang? I'm sorry to read this because it means the effort of the EU peace project has not always been understood. It's a tragedy. As for "Britain will prevail"? That sounds like over-confident and unrealistic thinking, to me. Prevail at what? Setting standards to avoid lead in the paint on children's pencils? The UK has attempted that with its costly and absurd UKCA scheme to duplicate the CE safety mark. The UK can replace EU standards for the world! No, the UK is too small. All UKCA has done is waste fortunes." On this last point what was wrong with BS as a mark as I I work to BS 7671 | |||
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) | |||
"Why was over 50% of the vote for leave of the EU was such a blessing? " Decades of anti-EU propaganda gave people misinformation about it and blamed the EU for everything. There was a thread recently with all the weird nonsensical reasons people voted leave. " People hated it because it imposed rule from a distance and they were powerless to have an independent voice with internet communist control " This is a good example of the type of misunderstanding I mentioned. The UK had elected MEPs, we weren't ruled by the EU, Brussels is closer to London than parts of the UK, and the EU isn't communist by any definition of the word. " May people also voted to remain out of thinking oh well we are in now we may as well stay " Not at all. Lots of people understood what being a member of the EU offered, and understood to a degree the damage to the UK of leaving. " The EU was hated by a large percentage of the population , it still is " This is true. Lots of people still have no clue what the EU is or how it works. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brexiters should just be honest - they don't like the idea of cooperation with foreigners, and think it's worth the county being poorer to avoid it. They see people from other countries as the enemy, when it comes down to it. " I think (just opinion) that since brexit there has been more dialogue between the UK and other countries as the UK now has to do its own deals as well as still engaging with the EU | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why was over 50% of the vote for leave of the EU was such a blessing? Decades of anti-EU propaganda gave people misinformation about it and blamed the EU for everything. There was a thread recently with all the weird nonsensical reasons people voted leave. People hated it because it imposed rule from a distance and they were powerless to have an independent voice with internet communist control This is a good example of the type of misunderstanding I mentioned. The UK had elected MEPs, we weren't ruled by the EU, Brussels is closer to London than parts of the UK, and the EU isn't communist by any definition of the word. May people also voted to remain out of thinking oh well we are in now we may as well stay Not at all. Lots of people understood what being a member of the EU offered, and understood to a degree the damage to the UK of leaving. The EU was hated by a large percentage of the population , it still is This is true. Lots of people still have no clue what the EU is or how it works. " What do you class as anti EU propaganda. If it's completely untrue stories then I sort of agree though may term it as just plain lies. If any stories are true though I would just class that as reporting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why was over 50% of the vote for leave of the EU was such a blessing? Decades of anti-EU propaganda gave people misinformation about it and blamed the EU for everything. There was a thread recently with all the weird nonsensical reasons people voted leave. People hated it because it imposed rule from a distance and they were powerless to have an independent voice with internet communist control This is a good example of the type of misunderstanding I mentioned. The UK had elected MEPs, we weren't ruled by the EU, Brussels is closer to London than parts of the UK, and the EU isn't communist by any definition of the word. May people also voted to remain out of thinking oh well we are in now we may as well stay Not at all. Lots of people understood what being a member of the EU offered, and understood to a degree the damage to the UK of leaving. The EU was hated by a large percentage of the population , it still is This is true. Lots of people still have no clue what the EU is or how it works. What do you class as anti EU propaganda. If it's completely untrue stories then I sort of agree though may term it as just plain lies. If any stories are true though I would just class that as reporting" Mix of plain lies, to misinformation, to twisting the truth. If you're interested, there's a book called "How Press Propaganda Paved the Way to Brexit". If you Google it, you'll see reviews that tell you what it's about and give some examples. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why was over 50% of the vote for leave of the EU was such a blessing? Decades of anti-EU propaganda gave people misinformation about it and blamed the EU for everything. There was a thread recently with all the weird nonsensical reasons people voted leave. People hated it because it imposed rule from a distance and they were powerless to have an independent voice with internet communist control This is a good example of the type of misunderstanding I mentioned. The UK had elected MEPs, we weren't ruled by the EU, Brussels is closer to London than parts of the UK, and the EU isn't communist by any definition of the word. May people also voted to remain out of thinking oh well we are in now we may as well stay Not at all. Lots of people understood what being a member of the EU offered, and understood to a degree the damage to the UK of leaving. The EU was hated by a large percentage of the population , it still is This is true. Lots of people still have no clue what the EU is or how it works. What do you class as anti EU propaganda. If it's completely untrue stories then I sort of agree though may term it as just plain lies. If any stories are true though I would just class that as reporting Mix of plain lies, to misinformation, to twisting the truth. If you're interested, there's a book called "How Press Propaganda Paved the Way to Brexit". If you Google it, you'll see reviews that tell you what it's about and give some examples. " Lies and misinformation is obviously wrong. I ask as in the past on here and elsewhere people have accused others of posting anti EU stuff just because the story or article shows the EU in a bad light. The fact that the story or article was true did not seem to matter. But just to clarify lies and misinformation about any country or organization is wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why was over 50% of the vote for leave of the EU was such a blessing? Decades of anti-EU propaganda gave people misinformation about it and blamed the EU for everything. There was a thread recently with all the weird nonsensical reasons people voted leave. People hated it because it imposed rule from a distance and they were powerless to have an independent voice with internet communist control This is a good example of the type of misunderstanding I mentioned. The UK had elected MEPs, we weren't ruled by the EU, Brussels is closer to London than parts of the UK, and the EU isn't communist by any definition of the word. May people also voted to remain out of thinking oh well we are in now we may as well stay Not at all. Lots of people understood what being a member of the EU offered, and understood to a degree the damage to the UK of leaving. The EU was hated by a large percentage of the population , it still is This is true. Lots of people still have no clue what the EU is or how it works. What do you class as anti EU propaganda. If it's completely untrue stories then I sort of agree though may term it as just plain lies. If any stories are true though I would just class that as reporting Mix of plain lies, to misinformation, to twisting the truth. If you're interested, there's a book called "How Press Propaganda Paved the Way to Brexit". If you Google it, you'll see reviews that tell you what it's about and give some examples. Lies and misinformation is obviously wrong. I ask as in the past on here and elsewhere people have accused others of posting anti EU stuff just because the story or article shows the EU in a bad light. The fact that the story or article was true did not seem to matter. But just to clarify lies and misinformation about any country or organization is wrong" Here are some examples from the run up to Brexit, a spread of lies, misinformation, and twisting the truth. Obviously this goes way back decades, but it's harder to find the "bendy banana" exact quotes from back then. “We send the EU £350m a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead” Vote Leave’s red bus throughout the campaign “Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU. Vote Leave, take back control” Vote Leave campaign poster published on May 23, 2016 “Britain will be forced to join an EU ARMY unless we leave, says Armed Forces Minister” Penny Mordaunt, Sunday Express, May 29, 2016 “The UK government will continue to give farmers and the environment as much support – or perhaps even more – as now” Agriculture minister George Eustice’s speech at the launch of Farmers for Britain, March 23, 2016 “Believe me, we’ll have up to 40 [free trade agreements] ready for one second after midnight in March 2019” The international trade secretary, Liam Fox, Conservative Party conference, October 2017 “The UK Shared Prosperity Fund will […] bind together the whole of the UK, tackling inequality and deprivation in each of our four nations” Conservative Party Manifesto, 2019 “Cheaper food AFTER EU exit: Consumer boost as experts now say that prices will come DOWN” Daily Express, October 18, 2016 These examples are detailed in an article called "The 10 biggest lies of Brexit Seven years since the referendum, how have the “promises” made by the most prominent Brexiteers panned out? Here’s a rundown of the 10 most spectacular untruths" Published on a site called "The New European". If you Google it, you'll find all the details on these and other lies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why was over 50% of the vote for leave of the EU was such a blessing? Decades of anti-EU propaganda gave people misinformation about it and blamed the EU for everything. There was a thread recently with all the weird nonsensical reasons people voted leave. People hated it because it imposed rule from a distance and they were powerless to have an independent voice with internet communist control This is a good example of the type of misunderstanding I mentioned. The UK had elected MEPs, we weren't ruled by the EU, Brussels is closer to London than parts of the UK, and the EU isn't communist by any definition of the word. May people also voted to remain out of thinking oh well we are in now we may as well stay Not at all. Lots of people understood what being a member of the EU offered, and understood to a degree the damage to the UK of leaving. The EU was hated by a large percentage of the population , it still is This is true. Lots of people still have no clue what the EU is or how it works. What do you class as anti EU propaganda. If it's completely untrue stories then I sort of agree though may term it as just plain lies. If any stories are true though I would just class that as reporting Mix of plain lies, to misinformation, to twisting the truth. If you're interested, there's a book called "How Press Propaganda Paved the Way to Brexit". If you Google it, you'll see reviews that tell you what it's about and give some examples. Lies and misinformation is obviously wrong. I ask as in the past on here and elsewhere people have accused others of posting anti EU stuff just because the story or article shows the EU in a bad light. The fact that the story or article was true did not seem to matter. But just to clarify lies and misinformation about any country or organization is wrong Here are some examples from the run up to Brexit, a spread of lies, misinformation, and twisting the truth. Obviously this goes way back decades, but it's harder to find the "bendy banana" exact quotes from back then. “We send the EU £350m a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead” Vote Leave’s red bus throughout the campaign “Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU. Vote Leave, take back control” Vote Leave campaign poster published on May 23, 2016 “Britain will be forced to join an EU ARMY unless we leave, says Armed Forces Minister” Penny Mordaunt, Sunday Express, May 29, 2016 “The UK government will continue to give farmers and the environment as much support – or perhaps even more – as now” Agriculture minister George Eustice’s speech at the launch of Farmers for Britain, March 23, 2016 “Believe me, we’ll have up to 40 [free trade agreements] ready for one second after midnight in March 2019” The international trade secretary, Liam Fox, Conservative Party conference, October 2017 “The UK Shared Prosperity Fund will […] bind together the whole of the UK, tackling inequality and deprivation in each of our four nations” Conservative Party Manifesto, 2019 “Cheaper food AFTER EU exit: Consumer boost as experts now say that prices will come DOWN” Daily Express, October 18, 2016 These examples are detailed in an article called "The 10 biggest lies of Brexit Seven years since the referendum, how have the “promises” made by the most prominent Brexiteers panned out? Here’s a rundown of the 10 most spectacular untruths" Published on a site called "The New European". If you Google it, you'll find all the details on these and other lies. " Which us why I say posting lies ect is wrong but when a true story happens that does not show the EU in a good light, it's not anti EU in my opinion, it's just reporting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why was over 50% of the vote for leave of the EU was such a blessing? Decades of anti-EU propaganda gave people misinformation about it and blamed the EU for everything. There was a thread recently with all the weird nonsensical reasons people voted leave. People hated it because it imposed rule from a distance and they were powerless to have an independent voice with internet communist control This is a good example of the type of misunderstanding I mentioned. The UK had elected MEPs, we weren't ruled by the EU, Brussels is closer to London than parts of the UK, and the EU isn't communist by any definition of the word. May people also voted to remain out of thinking oh well we are in now we may as well stay Not at all. Lots of people understood what being a member of the EU offered, and understood to a degree the damage to the UK of leaving. The EU was hated by a large percentage of the population , it still is This is true. Lots of people still have no clue what the EU is or how it works. What do you class as anti EU propaganda. If it's completely untrue stories then I sort of agree though may term it as just plain lies. If any stories are true though I would just class that as reporting Mix of plain lies, to misinformation, to twisting the truth. If you're interested, there's a book called "How Press Propaganda Paved the Way to Brexit". If you Google it, you'll see reviews that tell you what it's about and give some examples. Lies and misinformation is obviously wrong. I ask as in the past on here and elsewhere people have accused others of posting anti EU stuff just because the story or article shows the EU in a bad light. The fact that the story or article was true did not seem to matter. But just to clarify lies and misinformation about any country or organization is wrong Here are some examples from the run up to Brexit, a spread of lies, misinformation, and twisting the truth. Obviously this goes way back decades, but it's harder to find the "bendy banana" exact quotes from back then. “We send the EU £350m a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead” Vote Leave’s red bus throughout the campaign “Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU. Vote Leave, take back control” Vote Leave campaign poster published on May 23, 2016 “Britain will be forced to join an EU ARMY unless we leave, says Armed Forces Minister” Penny Mordaunt, Sunday Express, May 29, 2016 “The UK government will continue to give farmers and the environment as much support – or perhaps even more – as now” Agriculture minister George Eustice’s speech at the launch of Farmers for Britain, March 23, 2016 “Believe me, we’ll have up to 40 [free trade agreements] ready for one second after midnight in March 2019” The international trade secretary, Liam Fox, Conservative Party conference, October 2017 “The UK Shared Prosperity Fund will […] bind together the whole of the UK, tackling inequality and deprivation in each of our four nations” Conservative Party Manifesto, 2019 “Cheaper food AFTER EU exit: Consumer boost as experts now say that prices will come DOWN” Daily Express, October 18, 2016 These examples are detailed in an article called "The 10 biggest lies of Brexit Seven years since the referendum, how have the “promises” made by the most prominent Brexiteers panned out? Here’s a rundown of the 10 most spectacular untruths" Published on a site called "The New European". If you Google it, you'll find all the details on these and other lies. Which us why I say posting lies ect is wrong but when a true story happens that does not show the EU in a good light, it's not anti EU in my opinion, it's just reporting" Of course. No one seems to pay much attention to those stories though. Such as the EU funded wall on the boarder of Turkey and Syria. Didn't hear anyone talking about that during the referendum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why was over 50% of the vote for leave of the EU was such a blessing? Decades of anti-EU propaganda gave people misinformation about it and blamed the EU for everything. There was a thread recently with all the weird nonsensical reasons people voted leave. People hated it because it imposed rule from a distance and they were powerless to have an independent voice with internet communist control This is a good example of the type of misunderstanding I mentioned. The UK had elected MEPs, we weren't ruled by the EU, Brussels is closer to London than parts of the UK, and the EU isn't communist by any definition of the word. May people also voted to remain out of thinking oh well we are in now we may as well stay Not at all. Lots of people understood what being a member of the EU offered, and understood to a degree the damage to the UK of leaving. The EU was hated by a large percentage of the population , it still is This is true. Lots of people still have no clue what the EU is or how it works. What do you class as anti EU propaganda. If it's completely untrue stories then I sort of agree though may term it as just plain lies. If any stories are true though I would just class that as reporting Mix of plain lies, to misinformation, to twisting the truth. If you're interested, there's a book called "How Press Propaganda Paved the Way to Brexit". If you Google it, you'll see reviews that tell you what it's about and give some examples. Lies and misinformation is obviously wrong. I ask as in the past on here and elsewhere people have accused others of posting anti EU stuff just because the story or article shows the EU in a bad light. The fact that the story or article was true did not seem to matter. But just to clarify lies and misinformation about any country or organization is wrong Here are some examples from the run up to Brexit, a spread of lies, misinformation, and twisting the truth. Obviously this goes way back decades, but it's harder to find the "bendy banana" exact quotes from back then. “We send the EU £350m a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead” Vote Leave’s red bus throughout the campaign “Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU. Vote Leave, take back control” Vote Leave campaign poster published on May 23, 2016 “Britain will be forced to join an EU ARMY unless we leave, says Armed Forces Minister” Penny Mordaunt, Sunday Express, May 29, 2016 “The UK government will continue to give farmers and the environment as much support – or perhaps even more – as now” Agriculture minister George Eustice’s speech at the launch of Farmers for Britain, March 23, 2016 “Believe me, we’ll have up to 40 [free trade agreements] ready for one second after midnight in March 2019” The international trade secretary, Liam Fox, Conservative Party conference, October 2017 “The UK Shared Prosperity Fund will […] bind together the whole of the UK, tackling inequality and deprivation in each of our four nations” Conservative Party Manifesto, 2019 “Cheaper food AFTER EU exit: Consumer boost as experts now say that prices will come DOWN” Daily Express, October 18, 2016 These examples are detailed in an article called "The 10 biggest lies of Brexit Seven years since the referendum, how have the “promises” made by the most prominent Brexiteers panned out? Here’s a rundown of the 10 most spectacular untruths" Published on a site called "The New European". If you Google it, you'll find all the details on these and other lies. Which us why I say posting lies ect is wrong but when a true story happens that does not show the EU in a good light, it's not anti EU in my opinion, it's just reporting Of course. No one seems to pay much attention to those stories though. Such as the EU funded wall on the boarder of Turkey and Syria. Didn't hear anyone talking about that during the referendum. " Not really what I was talking about but never mind | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Iceland withdrew its request for e.u membership. Iceland is in the European Economic Area. Iceland has got EU freedom of movement which the Brits have confiscated from themselves. Iceland is in Schengen, so South Africans visiting Belgium with a Schengen visa can also go to Iceland with no more costs or paperwork. Not so for the Schengen refusnik UK. The fearful Brits preferred delays and queues instead of Schengen. How happy are they now with even more delays and queues? Iceland is in the European Free Trade Area that the UK helped to set up. The EFTA/EAA doesn't cover EU agriculture but there is an EU-Iceland deal on farm produce. One of the things that's covered is ram semen. Iceland isn't in the euro currency. No-euro Brits preferred obstructing themselves with exchange costs all the time. Portugal was in the EFTA but left to join the EEC instead. So did the UK. Yes, the UK left the EFTA to join the EEC and Euratom instead. Now the UK has got far less - apart from Northern Ireland that's partially exempt. No EFTA, no free movement, no Euratom, no EU, no customs union. Returning to our South Africans visiting Belgium: they can send a parcel to Turkey customs-charges-free but not to Stoke on Trent. Talk about self-immolation!" So then all those words the say iceland chose not to join tbe e.u ? And Greenland left the E.C Proving I was right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why was over 50% of the vote for leave of the EU was such a blessing? Decades of anti-EU propaganda gave people misinformation about it and blamed the EU for everything. There was a thread recently with all the weird nonsensical reasons people voted leave. People hated it because it imposed rule from a distance and they were powerless to have an independent voice with internet communist control This is a good example of the type of misunderstanding I mentioned. The UK had elected MEPs, we weren't ruled by the EU, Brussels is closer to London than parts of the UK, and the EU isn't communist by any definition of the word. May people also voted to remain out of thinking oh well we are in now we may as well stay Not at all. Lots of people understood what being a member of the EU offered, and understood to a degree the damage to the UK of leaving. The EU was hated by a large percentage of the population , it still is This is true. Lots of people still have no clue what the EU is or how it works. What do you class as anti EU propaganda. If it's completely untrue stories then I sort of agree though may term it as just plain lies. If any stories are true though I would just class that as reporting Mix of plain lies, to misinformation, to twisting the truth. If you're interested, there's a book called "How Press Propaganda Paved the Way to Brexit". If you Google it, you'll see reviews that tell you what it's about and give some examples. Lies and misinformation is obviously wrong. I ask as in the past on here and elsewhere people have accused others of posting anti EU stuff just because the story or article shows the EU in a bad light. The fact that the story or article was true did not seem to matter. But just to clarify lies and misinformation about any country or organization is wrong Here are some examples from the run up to Brexit, a spread of lies, misinformation, and twisting the truth. Obviously this goes way back decades, but it's harder to find the "bendy banana" exact quotes from back then. “We send the EU £350m a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead” Vote Leave’s red bus throughout the campaign “Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU. Vote Leave, take back control” Vote Leave campaign poster published on May 23, 2016 “Britain will be forced to join an EU ARMY unless we leave, says Armed Forces Minister” Penny Mordaunt, Sunday Express, May 29, 2016 “The UK government will continue to give farmers and the environment as much support – or perhaps even more – as now” Agriculture minister George Eustice’s speech at the launch of Farmers for Britain, March 23, 2016 “Believe me, we’ll have up to 40 [free trade agreements] ready for one second after midnight in March 2019” The international trade secretary, Liam Fox, Conservative Party conference, October 2017 “The UK Shared Prosperity Fund will […] bind together the whole of the UK, tackling inequality and deprivation in each of our four nations” Conservative Party Manifesto, 2019 “Cheaper food AFTER EU exit: Consumer boost as experts now say that prices will come DOWN” Daily Express, October 18, 2016 These examples are detailed in an article called "The 10 biggest lies of Brexit Seven years since the referendum, how have the “promises” made by the most prominent Brexiteers panned out? Here’s a rundown of the 10 most spectacular untruths" Published on a site called "The New European". If you Google it, you'll find all the details on these and other lies. Which us why I say posting lies ect is wrong but when a true story happens that does not show the EU in a good light, it's not anti EU in my opinion, it's just reporting Of course. No one seems to pay much attention to those stories though. Such as the EU funded wall on the boarder of Turkey and Syria. Didn't hear anyone talking about that during the referendum. Not really what I was talking about but never mind" I was agreeing with you and even gave an example of "true story happens that does not show the EU in a good light" If missed your point, you can give a better example maybe? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"iceland chose not to join tbe e.u ? " Yep, Iceland has got no seat at the top table of the EU. No diplomats in the Committee of Permanent Representatives. No vote for its government ministers in the Council of the European Union. No Members of the European Parliament. No-one working in the European Commission. No-one working in the Court of Auditors. No judges in the EU's courts. No-one in the Committee of the Regions or the Economic and Social Committee. Iceland doesn't host any of the EU agencies. BUT Iceland is in a whole load of EU stuff, and is far better off than benighted blighted Blighty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I always shall be the person I was born and no law...can tell me orherwise as I never have been 'European'... Many others saw the inevitable result which years of 'harmonisation'" Who on earth has ever wanted to pass a law to make anyone be "European" in "their own mind"?? What people feel in their own mind is up to them. Look at article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. "Article 24(1) Freedom of thought, conscience..." The European Union *defends* freedom of thought! Just suppose the EU countries did somehow pass a law saying, "Citizens of the Union shall consider themselves to be Europeans. Non-compliance with this requirement shall be prohibited". Then people would bring a case to the EU's lower court saying that they were harmed by this as it is contrary to the Charter - and the Court would strike down that law as unlawful. Who says that integration "inevitably" leads to anything? To what? A United States of Europe modelled on the structure of Switzerland or Germany? That's not "inevitable" at all. It could be a thing if every one of the member countries wanted it. Should there be a single European post office so we can buy Eurostamps? Should there be a single US of E passport to make a better European citizenship? Look at the contradiction of the anti-EU folks. They say they wouldn't enjoy a United States of Europe. Then they complain that the EU isn't democratic enough because there's no overall directly elected president. That would be a step towards a US of E that they just said they didn't want. Apparently I am at fault for pointing this out? I am at fault for too many posts? Alright, who is going to decide when I've exceeded a limit? What's my quota? What's wrong with caring about something? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"iceland chose not to join tbe e.u ? Yep, Iceland has got no seat at the top table of the EU. No diplomats in the Committee of Permanent Representatives. No vote for its government ministers in the Council of the European Union. No Members of the European Parliament. No-one working in the European Commission. No-one working in the Court of Auditors. No judges in the EU's courts. No-one in the Committee of the Regions or the Economic and Social Committee. Iceland doesn't host any of the EU agencies. BUT Iceland is in a whole load of EU stuff, and is far better off than benighted blighted Blighty." Thank you for confirming what I said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I always shall be the person I was born and no law...can tell me orherwise as I never have been 'European'... Many others saw the inevitable result which years of 'harmonisation' Who on earth has ever wanted to pass a law to make anyone be "European" in "their own mind"?? What people feel in their own mind is up to them. Look at article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. "Article 24(1) Freedom of thought, conscience..." The European Union *defends* freedom of thought! Just suppose the EU countries did somehow pass a law saying, "Citizens of the Union shall consider themselves to be Europeans. Non-compliance with this requirement shall be prohibited". Then people would bring a case to the EU's lower court saying that they were harmed by this as it is contrary to the Charter - and the Court would strike down that law as unlawful. Who says that integration "inevitably" leads to anything? To what? A United States of Europe modelled on the structure of Switzerland or Germany? That's not "inevitable" at all. It could be a thing if every one of the member countries wanted it. Should there be a single European post office so we can buy Eurostamps? Should there be a single US of E passport to make a better European citizenship? Look at the contradiction of the anti-EU folks. They say they wouldn't enjoy a United States of Europe. Then they complain that the EU isn't democratic enough because there's no overall directly elected president. That would be a step towards a US of E that they just said they didn't want. Apparently I am at fault for pointing this out? I am at fault for too many posts? Alright, who is going to decide when I've exceeded a limit? What's my quota? What's wrong with caring about something?" *********************************** You don't really 'care', you're just someone with far too much time on their hands or, you're playing the virtue signal game. IF..... you have any contribution(s) to offer, it's good manners and rather decent to quote the whole of a post, NOT extracts to twist and suit whatever 'agenda' you favour. Oh, and as I have had reason to rebuke your ridiculous game earlier, I forgot to add the fact I am far too secure and intelligent to have any "fear" of Brexit, it's what I wanted. OK chum....?? Now, I shall decline to know you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People hated it because it imposed rule from a distance " Ah that is just an excuse, I think. It's got more to do the base motives of fear and jealousy that Shakespeare would recognise. I went to Birmingham where two men cleaning the early morning market saw my Euro flag. They said, disparagingly, "They want free movement, don't they?" What did they mean? I think they meant that they were afraid that someone from Hungary or Romania where living is cheaper might offer to do their job for less money. Likewise, it seems to me that labourers on building sites resented hearing Polish voices on site, because: - Not knowing Polish, on hearing a group of Polish fellows talking and laughing, they couldn't enjoy the joke too and that made the day's work less fun. - Brit workers resented competition because they wanted guaranteed jobs and to take as long as they liked and charge as much as they liked with no competition, and they disliked being shown up for being slow. - Brit workers felt jealous because they saw motivated multilingual younger Polish workers could in a few years maybe earn enough to buy a house in the countryside in Poland, while monolingual Brits lacked a similar opportunity in Lithuania, Slovakia etc. As for Stoke on Trent, for example, pottery jobs that were economic in the Midlands are now economic in the Far East instead, and that has an impact. (Not that this is the EU's fault). I've been to S on T and everywhere in Hanley there are buildings longing to be restored - but the Gov has concentrated on financial services instead. Then David Cameron basically said to people in S on T "are you happy with the way things are?" and of course they said no, of course we're not happy with the way things are, don't be ridiculous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You don't really 'care', you're just someone with far too much time on their hands or, you're playing the virtue signal game." Mm, I should apologise for reacting to a devastating political event? I was extremely upset by the abhorrent EU referendum result. Now I am to say, oh well, never mind, it doesn't matter? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The outrages would be easier to bear if the anti-EU politicians had been honest. They should have said: "EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK will HAVE to APPLY to secure their immigration status, otherwise they will be made UNLAWFUL and liable for REMOVAL". Instead, they said EU citizens would see "no change". It's unbelievable." That's dreadful. We said that there would be no change, but then we made them fill in a form. How awful of us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The outrages would be easier to bear if the anti-EU politicians had been honest. They should have said: "EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK will HAVE to APPLY to secure their immigration status, otherwise they will be made UNLAWFUL and liable for REMOVAL". Instead, they said EU citizens would see "no change". It's unbelievable. That's dreadful. We said that there would be no change, but then we made them fill in a form. How awful of us." ************************************ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The outrages would be easier to bear if the anti-EU politicians had been honest. They should have said: "EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK will HAVE to APPLY to secure their immigration status, otherwise they will be made UNLAWFUL and liable for REMOVAL". Instead, they said EU citizens would see "no change". It's unbelievable. That's dreadful. We said that there would be no change, but then we made them fill in a form. How awful of us." We said the NHS would benefit. We said there’d be no downside. We said we wouldn’t leave the single market. We lied. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We said that there would be no change, but then we made them fill in a form. How awful." How enviable that is. That comes from someone who is lucky. That comes from someone who is so comfortable and so safe in their own country. Should I feel sorry for anyone who says that, with their flippant tone, and their lack of awareness of what is being done in their name? I wonder. If it were happening to you, would you say that? Firstly, after the referendum, some EU citizens in the UK tried to get some security for themselves and their families by applying for Permanent Residency. They got refused. Why? Because they had not had "Comprehensive Sickness Insurance" that no-one had mentioned until then. How do you think that felt? After a court case, they should now be getting compensation for being abused by the British State. Will they? Secondly, the "Settled Status" scheme that EU citizens in the UK have been made to apply for... (Look at the awful name. Look at the initials. Do the initials ring any bells?) It's online only. It required a smartphone. No, there was no paper application. Some had to send in literally kilos of paperwork to try to prove their existence in this country. Some were refused and had to try again. I have a Brit friend married to a Bulgarian. They were refused on the first attempt and he said, "It was not a nice feeling". Now, those who have got "pre-settled" or "settled status" don't get a card. You get nothing to put on the table. You have to fill in an online form EVERY TIME you have to prove your status involving emails and share codes. You have to rely on this failure prone tech every time you apply for a job, every time you apply for a bank account, every time you go to rent a house, every time you go to the doctor, every time you go to the hospital... It's not just *a* form. Oh, no, that would be too simple. It's many forms on an ongoing basis and not just for you but, unless they qualify to be born British, for your children as well. Newborn babies must also apply in some circumstances. Just because the mother and father have got the status, doesn't mean their children do automatically. No. The Home Office will never let you forget you're a foreigner. I assure you, if it were happening to you, it's pretty likely you would not be happy about it. There's a good chance you would say the very worst thing of all is the silence of too many Brits, who change the subject, or say it's no big deal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We said that there would be no change, but then we made them fill in a form. How awful. How enviable that is. That comes from someone who is lucky. That comes from someone who is so comfortable and so safe in their own country. Should I feel sorry for anyone who says that, with their flippant tone, and their lack of awareness of what is being done in their name? I wonder. If it were happening to you, would you say that? Firstly, after the referendum, some EU citizens in the UK tried to get some security for themselves and their families by applying for Permanent Residency. They got refused. Why? Because they had not had "Comprehensive Sickness Insurance" that no-one had mentioned until then. How do you think that felt? After a court case, they should now be getting compensation for being abused by the British State. Will they? Secondly, the "Settled Status" scheme that EU citizens in the UK have been made to apply for... (Look at the awful name. Look at the initials. Do the initials ring any bells?) It's online only. It required a smartphone. No, there was no paper application. Some had to send in literally kilos of paperwork to try to prove their existence in this country. Some were refused and had to try again. I have a Brit friend married to a Bulgarian. They were refused on the first attempt and he said, "It was not a nice feeling". Now, those who have got "pre-settled" or "settled status" don't get a card. You get nothing to put on the table. You have to fill in an online form EVERY TIME you have to prove your status involving emails and share codes. You have to rely on this failure prone tech every time you apply for a job, every time you apply for a bank account, every time you go to rent a house, every time you go to the doctor, every time you go to the hospital... It's not just *a* form. Oh, no, that would be too simple. It's many forms on an ongoing basis and not just for you but, unless they qualify to be born British, for your children as well. Newborn babies must also apply in some circumstances. Just because the mother and father have got the status, doesn't mean their children do automatically. No. The Home Office will never let you forget you're a foreigner. I assure you, if it were happening to you, it's pretty likely you would not be happy about it. There's a good chance you would say the very worst thing of all is the silence of too many Brits, who change the subject, or say it's no big deal." Did you really just liken settled status to Nazi Germany? Fuck me, you lot know no bounds. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you really just liken settled status to Nazi Germany? " Some people feel ill every time they see the initials of the so-called "settled status", because of their family's history. I know this because they have said so. Look in the non profit book of testimonies "In Limbo" compiled by Elena Remigi. Read it and it seems to me it is unlikely you will conclude that the British State has been fair or reasonable. There's a campaign group for EU citizens' rights in the UK called the3million. The3million are trying to get attention to the fact that the situation now is a long way from the promises that were made before the referendum. If only it were as simple as some of the comments on this page said. If only it had been literally one form. *A* form. In the singular. Without the humiliation of having to send kilos of supporting documents. No, it's constant forms ongoing, because there's NO physical proof. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you really just liken settled status to Nazi Germany? Some people feel ill every time they see the initials of the so-called "settled status", because of their family's history. I know this because they have said so. Look in the non profit book of testimonies "In Limbo" compiled by Elena Remigi. Read it and it seems to me it is unlikely you will conclude that the British State has been fair or reasonable. There's a campaign group for EU citizens' rights in the UK called the3million. The3million are trying to get attention to the fact that the situation now is a long way from the promises that were made before the referendum. If only it were as simple as some of the comments on this page said. If only it had been literally one form. *A* form. In the singular. Without the humiliation of having to send kilos of supporting documents. No, it's constant forms ongoing, because there's NO physical proof." I didn't say they had been 'fair or reasonable' Your anecdote means nothing Likening settled status to Nazi Germany is actually is nothing more than trying to win an argument using emotion. Straight out of the lefts playbook as always. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you really just liken settled status to Nazi Germany? Some people feel ill every time they see the initials of the so-called "settled status", because of their family's history. I know this because they have said so. Look in the non profit book of testimonies "In Limbo" compiled by Elena Remigi. Read it and it seems to me it is unlikely you will conclude that the British State has been fair or reasonable. There's a campaign group for EU citizens' rights in the UK called the3million. The3million are trying to get attention to the fact that the situation now is a long way from the promises that were made before the referendum. If only it were as simple as some of the comments on this page said. If only it had been literally one form. *A* form. In the singular. Without the humiliation of having to send kilos of supporting documents. No, it's constant forms ongoing, because there's NO physical proof. I didn't say they had been 'fair or reasonable' Your anecdote means nothing Likening settled status to Nazi Germany is actually is nothing more than trying to win an argument using emotion. Straight out of the lefts playbook as always. " The Brexit argument was won by remain a long time ago. It was won when it became evident that brexiters had no intention, ability or means to provide the promises they made pre-referendum. No emotion needed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Likening settled status to Nazi Germany is actually is nothing more than trying to win an argument using emotion." But those initials do mean something. It is well known what they mean. I didn't choose that name. The Conservative Government chose that name. Why did the Government act in such an insensitive way? Lots of people's lives have been damaged in practical ways. People cried on the morning of the referendum result. Other people have fled the UK because of it. Some have written things like, "The day I left the UK was the saddest day of my life". I at fault for pointing out that there are emotions involved? I didn't cause all these emotions. Anti-EU politicians and anti-EU voters did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you really just liken settled status to Nazi Germany? Some people feel ill every time they see the initials of the so-called "settled status", because of their family's history. I know this because they have said so. Look in the non profit book of testimonies "In Limbo" compiled by Elena Remigi. Read it and it seems to me it is unlikely you will conclude that the British State has been fair or reasonable. There's a campaign group for EU citizens' rights in the UK called the3million. The3million are trying to get attention to the fact that the situation now is a long way from the promises that were made before the referendum. If only it were as simple as some of the comments on this page said. If only it had been literally one form. *A* form. In the singular. Without the humiliation of having to send kilos of supporting documents. No, it's constant forms ongoing, because there's NO physical proof. I didn't say they had been 'fair or reasonable' Your anecdote means nothing Likening settled status to Nazi Germany is actually is nothing more than trying to win an argument using emotion. Straight out of the lefts playbook as always. The Brexit argument was won by remain a long time ago. It was won when it became evident that brexiters had no intention, ability or means to provide the promises they made pre-referendum. No emotion needed. " What does any of that have to do with my response to the other poster? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Likening settled status to Nazi Germany is actually is nothing more than trying to win an argument using emotion. But those initials do mean something. It is well known what they mean. I didn't choose that name. The Conservative Government chose that name. Why did the Government act in such an insensitive way? Lots of people's lives have been damaged in practical ways. People cried on the morning of the referendum result. Other people have fled the UK because of it. Some have written things like, "The day I left the UK was the saddest day of my life". I at fault for pointing out that there are emotions involved? I didn't cause all these emotions. Anti-EU politicians and anti-EU voters did." Absolutely no one would liken 'Settled Status' to 'Nazi Germany'. The government may have chosen 'Settled Status', it actually makes perfect sense. You chose to abbreviate it try win an emotional argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you really just liken settled status to Nazi Germany? Some people feel ill every time they see the initials of the so-called "settled status", because of their family's history. I know this because they have said so. Look in the non profit book of testimonies "In Limbo" compiled by Elena Remigi. Read it and it seems to me it is unlikely you will conclude that the British State has been fair or reasonable. There's a campaign group for EU citizens' rights in the UK called the3million. The3million are trying to get attention to the fact that the situation now is a long way from the promises that were made before the referendum. If only it were as simple as some of the comments on this page said. If only it had been literally one form. *A* form. In the singular. Without the humiliation of having to send kilos of supporting documents. No, it's constant forms ongoing, because there's NO physical proof. I didn't say they had been 'fair or reasonable' Your anecdote means nothing Likening settled status to Nazi Germany is actually is nothing more than trying to win an argument using emotion. Straight out of the lefts playbook as always. The Brexit argument was won by remain a long time ago. It was won when it became evident that brexiters had no intention, ability or means to provide the promises they made pre-referendum. No emotion needed. What does any of that have to do with my response to the other poster? " “nothing more than trying to win an argument using emotion” I agree with you. It’s unnecessary. The argument has been won. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you really just liken settled status to Nazi Germany? Some people feel ill every time they see the initials of the so-called "settled status", because of their family's history. I know this because they have said so. Look in the non profit book of testimonies "In Limbo" compiled by Elena Remigi. Read it and it seems to me it is unlikely you will conclude that the British State has been fair or reasonable. There's a campaign group for EU citizens' rights in the UK called the3million. The3million are trying to get attention to the fact that the situation now is a long way from the promises that were made before the referendum. If only it were as simple as some of the comments on this page said. If only it had been literally one form. *A* form. In the singular. Without the humiliation of having to send kilos of supporting documents. No, it's constant forms ongoing, because there's NO physical proof." It looks like you need to start mixing with a wider cross section of society. Anyone resident in the UK prior to a certain date simply filled in a form in order to remain . Hardly exactly difficult. Others applied for residency. If people failed to plan it is not the governments fault . No one has lost out . The result of the referendum was a stunning achievement and proof that the silent minority cannot be bullied The woke loving liberal elite and only a small but vocal minority trying to present a false view of reality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you really just liken settled status to Nazi Germany? Some people feel ill every time they see the initials of the so-called "settled status", because of their family's history. I know this because they have said so. Look in the non profit book of testimonies "In Limbo" compiled by Elena Remigi. Read it and it seems to me it is unlikely you will conclude that the British State has been fair or reasonable. There's a campaign group for EU citizens' rights in the UK called the3million. The3million are trying to get attention to the fact that the situation now is a long way from the promises that were made before the referendum. If only it were as simple as some of the comments on this page said. If only it had been literally one form. *A* form. In the singular. Without the humiliation of having to send kilos of supporting documents. No, it's constant forms ongoing, because there's NO physical proof.It looks like you need to start mixing with a wider cross section of society. Anyone resident in the UK prior to a certain date simply filled in a form in order to remain . Hardly exactly difficult. Others applied for residency. If people failed to plan it is not the governments fault . No one has lost out . The result of the referendum was a stunning achievement and proof that the silent minority cannot be bullied The woke loving liberal elite and only a small but vocal minority trying to present a false view of reality. " Why do you think a clear polling majority now believe Brexit to have been a mistake? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The woke loving liberal elite and only a small but vocal minority trying to present a false view of reality. " Do you really believe that only non-racist people understand the consequences of brexit? Pretty insulting stuff. | |||
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) | |||
"Yes i remember all the brexiteers saying in 50 years.. u are just looking for an argument or maybe you are just a mumpsimus " I must admit that the word mumpsimus is new to me, not sure I will ever use it myself as it all seems a little Boris Johnson in lexicon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Naively thinking the establishment would honour the electorates wishes? (As opposed to kicking the can down the road for three years and failing to take advantage of it). " Teresa May’s deal, with hindsight, was probably the best deal possible. Yep. Brexit was always that shit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone resident in the UK prior to a certain date simply filled in a form in order to remain . Hardly exactly difficult. Others applied for residency. If people failed to plan it is not the governments fault "No one has lost out ." Well, it has not been that simple. It required a smartphone. Some applicants had to read the electronic chip inside their passport using a smartphone and had problems getting it to work. Filling in the form also required a working email address. Even pensioners who have never had an email address had to get one and learn how to use it, or rely on someone else's. Complying with a demand for payslips was more difficult when they'd been lost. Getting copies of lost payslips was more difficult when the company concerned had gone bust and no longer existed. All of this has been much more demanding than filling in one form on paper and signing a declaration at the bottom. EU citizens did plan. They based their lives and loves on the fact that the UK was a fellow EU country. They assumed that the UK would continue to honour the legal framework and obligations that go with membership. They had the reasonable expectation that the UK would keep its promises. No-one has lost out? Er, no. Suppose you are a British woman married to a Dutch man. He would like to move to the Netherlands to look after his mother there. Can you go with your Dutch husband? No, not as readily as before. Now you face Dutch immigration laws which mean you will need to be able to speak Dutch and you will have to prove a stable and secure minimum income between you and your husband. EU free movement can have income requirements ie you have to be able to support yourself if you are staying for more than 3 months. But there is no language competence demand because that could amount to discrimination against citizens of another EU country on ground of their nationality, and that is illegal under EU law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We haven't got the border control some wanted, Turkey aren't much closer to joining, there's still no EU Army, in fact there was a poll last year whether the UK should join one and a 10% swing in favour made it very close, 1% difference. Dig a little deeper and there's loads of things we opted out of that we didn't need to. To the detriment of the UK as a whole Ever get the feeling you've been had? " That’s why I didn’t vote for it…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
