Remainers, most notably @Bournemouth Addick , have been saying for a long time that consumer regulations are likely to be worse outside the EU. However, this is another issue where I've never felt that those supporting Brexit have properly understood what will be lost or how it could be adequately replaced. Who is going to monitor the Peruvian bivalve situation to ensure that we don't eat scallops laden with hepatitis? Who is going to maintain a bilateral agreement with Israel? Who is going to decide the certification requirements for marine gastropods?
It strikes me that there are two main possibilities with this. We could say that we we keep in line with the EU's regulations (after all, all our exports to Europe will have to comply anyway). That seems to be both the simplest and safest approach. If we do that though, the 'sovereignty' argument falls flat on its face. We'd be tying ourselves to a regulatory framework into which we would have precisely zero input.
Alternatively, we could scrap the EU standards and make things up as we go along. But who's going to do that? It's noticeable that it's very often the same people who want Brexit that complain about the size of the civil service. Could the current government (or any future one's for that matter) be trusted to take this seriously? Are MAFF fully geared up to taking on all this work? Or will it be cut back along with road repairs, library funding and social security as another part of the austerity agenda.
The EU is much maligned for being bureaucratic. Whilst I don't support bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, I do think that a very large part of what's labelled bureaucracy is actually very useful, detailed and thankless work. I applaud those in the EU (and HM Govt and local councils) who do so much to protect us. I only hope that in a couple of years time I can be quite so confident when I tuck in to a bowl of mussels that they won't be Turkish ones containing e-coli. Somehow I doubt it.
So the EU is a virtuous, benign rule maker stepping in to make rules for the good of all (unless in conflict with self interests)
MEPs voted against quantitative binding targets to reduce the catch of small young fish, which is essential to ensuring fish can reproduce. These decisions are also subject to further approval, so could be reversed, but given the vested fishing interests in many EU governments that may be unlikely.
Björn Stockhausen, fisheries policy officer at the Seas At Risk alliance, said: “The European parliament has weakened the measures that have granted protection to European seas for decades. These new diminished rules will undermine the health of marine ecosystems and the stability of fish stocks.”
It's easy to pass regulations that make it difficult for exporters to gain access to the EU market, stifle competition and hail them as advancing the interests of consumers. Try passing regulations that protect EU citizens or the environment where they conflict with the commercial self interests of one or more EU nations.
Why it is not obvious to everyone that the EU is run for the benefit of big business over the interests of citizens I struggle to understand.
Incidentally, the EU doesn't have expenses corruption scandals because, in the EU, theft from the taxpayer in the form of unsubstantiated expenses is legalised.
Farage has been banging on about this for years, but all though they bang on about is debate and democracy they only listen to one side.. To quote shooters ' little EU ostriches' .
I would be very interested to see Farages expenses compared to his voting and Brussels attendance at meetings and debate etc. I wonder if he’s Happy to accept his eu pension ?
One thing calling it a trough. Quite another getting your nose out of it.
I would be very interested to see Farages expenses compared to his voting and Brussels attendance at meetings and debate etc. I wonder if he’s Happy to accept his eu pension ?
One thing calling it a trough. Quite another getting your nose out of it.
Totally agree let's see all of their expenses published every single one.
I would be very interested to see Farages expenses compared to his voting and Brussels attendance at meetings and debate etc. I wonder if he’s Happy to accept his eu pension ?
One thing calling it a trough. Quite another getting your nose out of it.
Totally agree let's see all of their expenses published every single one.
I would be very interested to see Farages expenses compared to his voting and Brussels attendance at meetings and debate etc. I wonder if he’s Happy to accept his eu pension ?
One thing calling it a trough. Quite another getting your nose out of it.
Totally agree let's see all of their expenses published every single one.
Nepotism and corruption eh? The health minister Jeremy Hunt is fourth cousin to the Queen. His first cousin is Virginia Bottomley ex MP for South West Surrey and ex Tory Health Minister. Jeremy Hunt is MP for South West Surrey and, as mentioned, Tory health minister. Nothing dodgy there then.
Yes... But i would not stick up for them... I would say the same... You lot say negative things about Farage , Fox, and Johnson, don't like the last two, but dare anyone say anything about your bent god, Juncker you don't like it.
Blimey you're really flogging this dead horse aren't you? Can somebody please give Chippy the argument on Junker he's looking for because so far not one poster has argued anything other than what's gone on is dodgy as...
Well...lets hear no more comments then about Farage/Fox/Johnson then your Lordship...who put you in charge....see how long you can keep quiet.
Are you ever capable of making an ounce of sense on this subject, Chips? You seem to respond to some argument going around inside your head rather than what is written...
Yes indeed its clear what was written, as usual it's your crowd that twists it around as being trivial. Dead horse subject though according to the governor.
Jeez. What is wrong with you? You appear to have the hump that no one wants to disagree with you and Southbank that this appointment stinks. Sorry about that.
Equally, it does not prove what you're suggesting, I think, that this is evidence that the whole of the EU is systematically corrupt and less democratic than the UK. It proves that nepotism and favouritism exists in some situations...just as I suspect it does in every single government around the globe, including our own...and certainly in any large business situation and, if we really want to take it to a ridiculous level, even in a sports environment.
Certain people in positions of power favouring others is not new nor exclusive to the EU. If you feel differently address that point by all means but suggesting that this means that the likes of Farage should get a free pass as a result of others "sticking up for" Junker is patently ridiculous.
A strong Remainer argument is that the EU is not corrupt and undemocratic. Yet Selmayr tricks his way to the top, immediately pays off the Commissiners with a massive pay rise so they will not challenge him, then tells his civil servants that the Commissioners do not matter and only the bureaucracy does.
I have said all through that the Brexit leaders are useless, but you Remainers will not admit that the EU is corrupt and undemocratic, despite all the evidence. You are so servile to the bureacrats and technocrats who despise the democratic process, it really shocks me.
What does not surprise me is that you do not bother to read what others, including me, have written in the last few hours. Let me help:
In response to: "Incidentally, the EU doesn't have expenses corruption scandals because, in the EU, theft from the taxpayer in the form of unsubstantiated expenses is legalised."
I wrote: "Your last point is a valid one, and one that needs to be addressed by challenging it, from within."
Chaz Hill wrote: "Certainly need to look into the way MEPs pay and allowances work. Just how Farage, in particular, and his fellow kippers get paid for doing fcuk all is a real scandal. He spends more time spouting shite on LBC and Question time than doing what he paid for by the Commission."
Fiddling expenses is not in the same league as becoming head of the entire EU civil service through trickery and corrupt practice-that is in a league of its own. And then declaring that power lies with that body and not the Commissioners (who are the ones you Remainers reckon represent the 'democratic' part of the EU)
Remainers, most notably @Bournemouth Addick , have been saying for a long time that consumer regulations are likely to be worse outside the EU. However, this is another issue where I've never felt that those supporting Brexit have properly understood what will be lost or how it could be adequately replaced. Who is going to monitor the Peruvian bivalve situation to ensure that we don't eat scallops laden with hepatitis? Who is going to maintain a bilateral agreement with Israel? Who is going to decide the certification requirements for marine gastropods?
It strikes me that there are two main possibilities with this. We could say that we we keep in line with the EU's regulations (after all, all our exports to Europe will have to comply anyway). That seems to be both the simplest and safest approach. If we do that though, the 'sovereignty' argument falls flat on its face. We'd be tying ourselves to a regulatory framework into which we would have precisely zero input.
Alternatively, we could scrap the EU standards and make things up as we go along. But who's going to do that? It's noticeable that it's very often the same people who want Brexit that complain about the size of the civil service. Could the current government (or any future one's for that matter) be trusted to take this seriously? Are MAFF fully geared up to taking on all this work? Or will it be cut back along with road repairs, library funding and social security as another part of the austerity agenda.
The EU is much maligned for being bureaucratic. Whilst I don't support bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, I do think that a very large part of what's labelled bureaucracy is actually very useful, detailed and thankless work. I applaud those in the EU (and HM Govt and local councils) who do so much to protect us. I only hope that in a couple of years time I can be quite so confident when I tuck in to a bowl of mussels that they won't be Turkish ones containing e-coli. Somehow I doubt it.
So the EU is a virtuous, benign rule maker stepping in to make rules for the good of all (unless in conflict with self interests)
MEPs voted against quantitative binding targets to reduce the catch of small young fish, which is essential to ensuring fish can reproduce. These decisions are also subject to further approval, so could be reversed, but given the vested fishing interests in many EU governments that may be unlikely.
Björn Stockhausen, fisheries policy officer at the Seas At Risk alliance, said: “The European parliament has weakened the measures that have granted protection to European seas for decades. These new diminished rules will undermine the health of marine ecosystems and the stability of fish stocks.”
It's easy to pass regulations that make it difficult for exporters to gain access to the EU market, stifle competition and hail them as advancing the interests of consumers. Try passing regulations that protect EU citizens or the environment where they conflict with the commercial self interests of one or more EU nations.
Why it is not obvious to everyone that the EU is run for the benefit of big business over the interests of citizens I struggle to understand.
Incidentally, the EU doesn't have expenses corruption scandals because, in the EU, theft from the taxpayer in the form of unsubstantiated expenses is legalised.
Do you have any examples in mind Dipps?
I can think of plenty of examples where it would suit big business over consumers interests not to have the current levels of regulation in place.
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
The question of how many leave voters supported a hard Brexit cannot be asked retrospectively. What can be asked is how many voters want to stay in the Customs Union and polls show that as a consistent 60:20 in favour with 20% "don't know". Taking the CU & SM off the table was a ploy designed to swallow up UKIP whole and then win a landslide. That was a one dimensional approach to the last election which totally failed to address the causes of the Brexit vote.
Many including myself have supported your logic around a "Brexit in name only solution" but there is a much more complex discussion to be had around the single market and the four freedoms and also how we might arrive at this position - might be worth opening up a new thread? That is the discussion which Labour are sidestepping for the time being by stating that they want a Brexit for "jobs and the economy". They are letting the Cabinet get on with things and have pledged to fight any deal which is bad for the UK economy. That's to say they believe in maintaining access no worse than that which we currently enjoy today. For those interested, their Scottish conference went through the same ground and they reaffirmed their belief in abandoning austerity, funding the NHS and building council houses etc.
The fact is that M.Barnier and Junker are asking May et al for solutions right now along the lines to which you address @se9addick For they are co-guarantors of an international treaty as well as having Ireland as one of the EU27. As you state, the integrity of the United Kingdom is at stake. And if there is a shift with N.Ireland, it is unlikely that will happen without blood spilt!
So the clock is ticking! It's not clear what is the process between now and October but the UK needs resolution and we are nowhere near. May is stating that we are going to lose some access and businesses are now recruiting people to help shift entire business units abroad to the EU27 so as to stay within the single market. Major parts of out economy such as financial services and car manufacturing are looking at solutions that are not good for UK jobs. It is for the Government to deliver and for the Chancellor to be honest with the country about the numbers.
And that's before anybody has calculated the cost of doubling up on regulations, bureaucracy and policing of this control. As @seth plum intimates, they Brexit they have to fix it.
What we should be aware of is that the pendulum is swinging back to an EFTA style resolution and it might be quite explosive politically across the country when the penny drops. We can look forward to the next set of polls on the indivisual issues and the evolution of the discussions between M.Barnier and Davis. And of course the London Elections. These are all going to heap pressure on the Blue Party to find solutions. And if they do nothing it will be Canada FTA on the table with the associated economic cost. Nobody can stop that scenario becoming more likely. However the EU agreed a fall back position with May before Christmas. And that fallback of a border in the Irish Sea is not exactly a Unionist proposition!
PS That the likes of @Dippenhall seek to distract with talk of expenses shows how desparate the leave argument is becoming! Payment to the EU is 1% of GDP and the expenses are a tiny fraction of that sum. And yet we are now becoming aware of a possible 5% hit to GDP with loss of associated tax revenues - in old money that's £60Bn per annum.
Even though it won't be fought on a brexit agenda, the Local Elections coming up soon will be another very substantial indicator of the political winds.
Even though it won't be fought on a brexit agenda, the Local Elections coming up soon will be another very substantial indicator of the political winds.
I think the local election results will be all over the place. I think the government ought to be getting a good kicking at this point but I’m not sure it will be quite as severe as would normally be expected.
Worrying for Corbyn if Labour don’t do very very well now that UKIP and Lib Dem’s are dead in the water.
Even though it won't be fought on a brexit agenda, the Local Elections coming up soon will be another very substantial indicator of the political winds.
I think the local election results will be all over the place. I think the government ought to be getting a good kicking at this point but I’m not sure it will be quite as severe as would normally be expected.
Worrying for Corbyn if Labour don’t do very very well now that UKIP and Lib Dem’s are dead in the water.
How I see it. Not much to choose between the two main parties on brexit, and everything is so polarised at the moment, with no third party to speak of, results will be a muddle and both sides will claim victory
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
The question of how many leave voters supported a hard Brexit cannot be asked retrospectively. What can be asked is how many voters want to stay in the Customs Union and polls show that as a consistent 60:20 in favour with 20% "don't know". Taking the CU & SM off the table was a ploy designed to swallow up UKIP whole and then win a landslide. That was a one dimensional approach to the last election which totally failed to address the causes of the Brexit vote.
Just stick this old favourite up again, to remind quitters what their heroes actually said...
Remainers, most notably @Bournemouth Addick , have been saying for a long time that consumer regulations are likely to be worse outside the EU. However, this is another issue where I've never felt that those supporting Brexit have properly understood what will be lost or how it could be adequately replaced. Who is going to monitor the Peruvian bivalve situation to ensure that we don't eat scallops laden with hepatitis? Who is going to maintain a bilateral agreement with Israel? Who is going to decide the certification requirements for marine gastropods?
It strikes me that there are two main possibilities with this. We could say that we we keep in line with the EU's regulations (after all, all our exports to Europe will have to comply anyway). That seems to be both the simplest and safest approach. If we do that though, the 'sovereignty' argument falls flat on its face. We'd be tying ourselves to a regulatory framework into which we would have precisely zero input.
Alternatively, we could scrap the EU standards and make things up as we go along. But who's going to do that? It's noticeable that it's very often the same people who want Brexit that complain about the size of the civil service. Could the current government (or any future one's for that matter) be trusted to take this seriously? Are MAFF fully geared up to taking on all this work? Or will it be cut back along with road repairs, library funding and social security as another part of the austerity agenda.
The EU is much maligned for being bureaucratic. Whilst I don't support bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, I do think that a very large part of what's labelled bureaucracy is actually very useful, detailed and thankless work. I applaud those in the EU (and HM Govt and local councils) who do so much to protect us. I only hope that in a couple of years time I can be quite so confident when I tuck in to a bowl of mussels that they won't be Turkish ones containing e-coli. Somehow I doubt it.
So the EU is a virtuous, benign rule maker stepping in to make rules for the good of all (unless in conflict with self interests)
MEPs voted against quantitative binding targets to reduce the catch of small young fish, which is essential to ensuring fish can reproduce. These decisions are also subject to further approval, so could be reversed, but given the vested fishing interests in many EU governments that may be unlikely.
Björn Stockhausen, fisheries policy officer at the Seas At Risk alliance, said: “The European parliament has weakened the measures that have granted protection to European seas for decades. These new diminished rules will undermine the health of marine ecosystems and the stability of fish stocks.”
It's easy to pass regulations that make it difficult for exporters to gain access to the EU market, stifle competition and hail them as advancing the interests of consumers. Try passing regulations that protect EU citizens or the environment where they conflict with the commercial self interests of one or more EU nations.
Why it is not obvious to everyone that the EU is run for the benefit of big business over the interests of citizens I struggle to understand.
Incidentally, the EU doesn't have expenses corruption scandals because, in the EU, theft from the taxpayer in the form of unsubstantiated expenses is legalised.
Not sure where you quotes come from, but I have highlighted the important words there, Dips. Once again you may be right in acting in the interest of big business (though working time directives, maternity and holiday pay statutes and all the other EU stuff that the tories hate would indicate otherwise). It's clear that the Tories want to run the UK for the benefit of big business too, but many quitters who have a problem with the EU (supposedly) doing it seem to revel in the Tories doing the same?
Your last point is a valid one, and one that needs to be addressed by challenging it, from within.
Another thought - how does the EU preventing favourable bespoke tax deals with companies like Amazon and Ikea tie in with them being for the benefit of big business?
I mean, walking away from the support of 27 other countries, to be left to a US administration who couldn't care less about us, and a Russian dictatorship who will fuck us over at any point they like.
I mean, walking away from the support of 27 other countries, to be left to a US administration who couldn't care less about us, and a Russian dictatorship who will fuck us over at any point they like.
Taking back control to get screwed into the floor
The events of the past week or two do present things in a stark light.
I mean, walking away from the support of 27 other countries, to be left to a US administration who couldn't care less about us, and a Russian dictatorship who will fuck us over at any point they like.
Taking back control to get screwed into the floor
The events of the past week or two do present things in a stark light.
But you can't talk sense to English nationalist, because a lot of them have a fanboy crush on Putin
I mean, walking away from the support of 27 other countries, to be left to a US administration who couldn't care less about us, and a Russian dictatorship who will fuck us over at any point they like.
Taking back control to get screwed into the floor
The nature and increased importance of any future trading relationships with the likes of Russia, China, etc has hardly featured in this whole recent attack in the UK.
May has come out in the last 24 hours demanding Russia explain themselves or face the consequences. We'll have to see what those consequences amount to in reality but it's highly likely the UK is going to have to develop it's own trade deal with Russia in the future so, to one degree or another, this is inevitably going to be a factor.
The lunatic across the pond has decided not to comment for once, which might be a good thing if he did it more often, but could be seen to show where his loyalties and priorities lie...
I mean, walking away from the support of 27 other countries, to be left to a US administration who couldn't care less about us, and a Russian dictatorship who will fuck us over at any point they like.
Taking back control to get screwed into the floor
The events of the past week or two do present things in a stark light.
But you can't talk sense to English nationalist, because a lot of them have a fanboy crush on Putin
As do the nationalist/populists across Europe, including out here in CEE. She denies it, but I am sure my wife has acquired a Kalashnikov and is going to quietly take some of them out.
Brexiters best hold back on booking that bargain holiday in Benidorm next year.
This bits interesting...
"A spokeswoman for the travel trade organisation Abta said: “Package holidays will continue to be covered by regulations which give holidaymakers the right to an alternative holiday, if available, or a refund in the event of changes caused by extraordinary circumstances.”
Whilst this is the case now I don't see how she can currently make any guarantees as to what the situation will be in 13 months time. We might find that a government minister decides on Day 1 to repeal any protection afforded by the Package Travel Directive. Unlikely immediately agreed but currently nothing to stop it from what I can see.
These protections are of course an example of big business ruling the roost over consumers that some on here have convinced themselves is happening...
Comments
One thing calling it a trough. Quite another getting your nose out of it.
I can think of plenty of examples where it would suit big business over consumers interests not to have the current levels of regulation in place.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43372084
Well done brexit! I shall have marmalade on my hat.
Many including myself have supported your logic around a "Brexit in name only solution" but there is a much more complex discussion to be had around the single market and the four freedoms and also how we might arrive at this position - might be worth opening up a new thread? That is the discussion which Labour are sidestepping for the time being by stating that they want a Brexit for "jobs and the economy". They are letting the Cabinet get on with things and have pledged to fight any deal which is bad for the UK economy. That's to say they believe in maintaining access no worse than that which we currently enjoy today. For those interested, their Scottish conference went through the same ground and they reaffirmed their belief in abandoning austerity, funding the NHS and building council houses etc.
The fact is that M.Barnier and Junker are asking May et al for solutions right now along the lines to which you address @se9addick For they are co-guarantors of an international treaty as well as having Ireland as one of the EU27. As you state, the integrity of the United Kingdom is at stake. And if there is a shift with N.Ireland, it is unlikely that will happen without blood spilt!
So the clock is ticking! It's not clear what is the process between now and October but the UK needs resolution and we are nowhere near. May is stating that we are going to lose some access and businesses are now recruiting people to help shift entire business units abroad to the EU27 so as to stay within the single market. Major parts of out economy such as financial services and car manufacturing are looking at solutions that are not good for UK jobs. It is for the Government to deliver and for the Chancellor to be honest with the country about the numbers.
And that's before anybody has calculated the cost of doubling up on regulations, bureaucracy and policing of this control. As @seth plum intimates, they Brexit they have to fix it.
What we should be aware of is that the pendulum is swinging back to an EFTA style resolution and it might be quite explosive politically across the country when the penny drops. We can look forward to the next set of polls on the indivisual issues and the evolution of the discussions between M.Barnier and Davis. And of course the London Elections. These are all going to heap pressure on the Blue Party to find solutions. And if they do nothing it will be Canada FTA on the table with the associated economic cost. Nobody can stop that scenario becoming more likely. However the EU agreed a fall back position with May before Christmas. And that fallback of a border in the Irish Sea is not exactly a Unionist proposition!
PS That the likes of @Dippenhall seek to distract with talk of expenses shows how desparate the leave argument is becoming! Payment to the EU is 1% of GDP and the expenses are a tiny fraction of that sum. And yet we are now becoming aware of a possible 5% hit to GDP with loss of associated tax revenues - in old money that's £60Bn per annum.
Worrying for Corbyn if Labour don’t do very very well now that UKIP and Lib Dem’s are dead in the water.
We should take back control of our ability to do deals overseas like the French have. And like we already have.
Taking back control to get screwed into the floor
May has come out in the last 24 hours demanding Russia explain themselves or face the consequences. We'll have to see what those consequences amount to in reality but it's highly likely the UK is going to have to develop it's own trade deal with Russia in the future so, to one degree or another, this is inevitably going to be a factor.
The lunatic across the pond has decided not to comment for once, which might be a good thing if he did it more often, but could be seen to show where his loyalties and priorities lie...
When he's PM we will be OK!
Brexiters best hold back on booking that bargain holiday in Benidorm next year.
"A spokeswoman for the travel trade organisation Abta said: “Package holidays will continue to be covered by regulations which give holidaymakers the right to an alternative holiday, if available, or a refund in the event of changes caused by extraordinary circumstances.”
Whilst this is the case now I don't see how she can currently make any guarantees as to what the situation will be in 13 months time. We might find that a government minister decides on Day 1 to repeal any protection afforded by the Package Travel Directive. Unlikely immediately agreed but currently nothing to stop it from what I can see.
These protections are of course an example of big business ruling the roost over consumers that some on here have convinced themselves is happening...