Why would Barnier be spouting 'meaningless platitudes'? I mean I know that helps you explain it in your world, but in reality - after all the negativity from Barnier and others, why change now?
It's normal. Barnier recognises that a big stage in the process has been completed - at last - and wishes to close the chapter, with no overhang of bad feeling from the preceding discussions. On to a new stage, clean slate. Standard personal skills in negotiation. Class, in other words. Too bad that class is in short supply on the other side
Wow - a momentary photo proves everything?? Really flawed tweet.
As for class - both sides in fulsome praise - does noone see any positive to this or shall we just continue to cynically weave our own narratives in a desperate bid to explain it?
As much as I hate Brexit and have no faith in Davis and Co to deliver the impossible dream, I really do dislike that sort of demeaning snapshot journalism. Had he really blanked Barnier, then fine but who amongst us can honestly say that we've never missed an offered-hand (not a euphemism)?
First thing we learned in history was never to trust a photo. Actually, it might have been about the Romans. Or maybe not to trust a photo of the Romans? I forget.
Why would Barnier be spouting 'meaningless platitudes'? I mean I know that helps you explain it in your world, but in reality - after all the negativity from Barnier and others, why change now?
In fairness to the UK negotiating team, they are mostly not trade negotiators, because they're not negotiating a trade deal - the UK is still short of trade negotiators.
At a guess, I'd suggest that most of the UK team are drawn from current or recent UKREP/Seconded National Expert staff in Brussels.
Though a cynic might suggest stressing the ability and hard work of the UK team might act as some kind of smokescreen for any perceived UK loss in the talks over the weekend.
Mind you, he could just have been showing Davis up.
Why would Barnier be spouting 'meaningless platitudes'? I mean I know that helps you explain it in your world, but in reality - after all the negativity from Barnier and others, why change now?
It's normal. Barnier recognises that a big stage in the process has been completed - at last - and wishes to close the chapter, with no overhang of bad feeling from the preceding discussions. On to a new stage, clean slate. Standard personal skills in negotiation. Class, in other words. Too bad that class is in short supply on the other side
Wow - a momentary photo proves everything?? Really flawed tweet.
As for class - both sides in fulsome praise - does noone see any positive to this or shall we just continue to cynically weave our own narratives in a desperate bid to explain it?
I am afraid I struggle to find anything positive because I don't find leaving the EU positive for any reason at all, and the details are equally difficult for me to accept, and difficult if not impossible to sort out. If two blokes have been polite for a while then fine, but the overarching fundamental for me is the dreadful event of brexit.
I think we all get that. Sounds like you will be negative until your last day then?
I am open to persuasion, but the persuader would need to be bloody good.
Why would Barnier be spouting 'meaningless platitudes'? I mean I know that helps you explain it in your world, but in reality - after all the negativity from Barnier and others, why change now?
In fairness to the UK negotiating team, they are mostly not trade negotiators, because they're not negotiating a trade deal - the UK is still short of trade negotiators.
At a guess, I'd suggest that most of the UK team are drawn from current or recent UKREP/Seconded National Expert staff in Brussels.
Though a cynic might suggest stressing the ability and hard work of the UK team might act as some kind of smokescreen for any perceived UK loss in the talks over the weekend.
Mind you, he could just have been showing Davis up.
All down to Dr Fox and his team now. Should be good for a few laughs!
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.
I know you find it difficult to believe, but regulations, dressed up as consumer protection, are often used to protect vested interests of businesses to create barriers to entry to a market to reduce competition. They are effectively non-financial tariffs to get round WTO rules, and very difficult to challenge. It's mainly big business that have the connections to lobby for protectionist regulations, unlike say the fragmented UK fishing industry composed of many small businesses who would like some protectionist regulations. Neither the EU nor the UK create regulations without pressure from somewhere.
No one can be wholly against protectionist regulations as long as they are transparently such, and the value to the consumer in higher prices is protecting the environment or local community cohesion, or greater economic activity benefitting the wider economy.
I can think of plenty of examples of regulations purporting to protect consumers that suit some big businesses in the EU and harm businesses in the UK, are based on no evidence that consumers need the the protection or that they are effective, and can be dropped without any impact on UK consumers as soon as we exit the EU.
I am happy to accept the idea that the UK can discriminate between regulations that are devices to protect vested interests the UK consumer no longer has to pay for after leaving the EU, or do not have to be maintained in order to gain access to an export market and can be dropped or amended; compared to regulations that should be retained to protect genuine interests of consumers on matters of health and safety.
If you believe every EU regulation without exception is good for the UK and designed to protect consumers, then you will probably not be supportive of a Regulation audit, regardless of the evidence in favour of reducing them.
At least the UK can crack on with those trade deals now. Dozens and dozens of them. I would suggest we start with the country that we share a special relationship with and get a deal for those factory bred bleached chickens and antibiotic and steroid pumped beef. We can then sell them lots of steel and aluminium by return.
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.
I know you find it difficult to believe, but regulations, dressed up as consumer protection, are often used to protect vested interests of businesses to create barriers to entry to a market to reduce competition. They are effectively non-financial tariffs to get round WTO rules, and very difficult to challenge. It's mainly big business that have the connections to lobby for protectionist regulations, unlike say the fragmented UK fishing industry composed of many small businesses who would like some protectionist regulations. Neither the EU nor the UK create regulations without pressure from somewhere.
No one can be wholly against protectionist regulations as long as they are transparently such, and the value to the consumer in higher prices is protecting the environment or local community cohesion, or greater economic activity benefitting the wider economy.
I can think of plenty of examples of regulations purporting to protect consumers that suit some big businesses in the EU and harm businesses in the UK, are based on no evidence that consumers need the the protection or that they are effective, and can be dropped without any impact on UK consumers as soon as we exit the EU.
I am happy to accept the idea that the UK can discriminate between regulations that are devices to protect vested interests the UK consumer no longer has to pay for after leaving the EU, or do not have to be maintained in order to gain access to an export market and can be dropped or amended; compared to regulations that should be retained to protect genuine interests of consumers on matters of health and safety.
If you believe every EU regulation without exception is good for the UK and designed to protect consumers, then you will probably not be supportive of a Regulation audit, regardless of the evidence in favour of reducing them.
Quite a lot in there I'd argue is just basic strawman arguing. I've never said, "... I believe every EU regulation without exception is good for the UK and designed to protect consumers..." for example. No one has. You're just going down the "Well, you think the EU is perfect!" nonsense in that.
But regardless, I asked if you had any specific examples in mind to substantiate your view why it should be, "...obvious to everyone that the EU is run for the benefit of big business over the interests of citizens". You may be right, but you haven't provided any evidence or any specific examples illustrating your point. If it's that obvious why not?
Now you're claiming that there are, "...plenty of examples of regulations purporting to protect consumers that suit some big businesses in the EU and harm businesses in the UK, are based on no evidence that consumers need the protection or that they are effective..."
Again, what examples of these regulations that harm UK businesses, have no justification and are not doing the job they were introduced for?
I shouldn't have to say this, but apparently I do, but for the record I'm not saying that every piece of EU law is a rip roaring success right across the board and everyone's a winner. Sometimes there are losers in a situation, like the smoking ban and the subsequent impact on some businesses, but on balance I do believe that we have benefited greatly as consumers from our EU membership and the joined up regulatory approach that comes from that.
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.
I know you find it difficult to believe, but regulations, dressed up as consumer protection, are often used to protect vested interests of businesses to create barriers to entry to a market to reduce competition. They are effectively non-financial tariffs to get round WTO rules, and very difficult to challenge. It's mainly big business that have the connections to lobby for protectionist regulations, unlike say the fragmented UK fishing industry composed of many small businesses who would like some protectionist regulations. Neither the EU nor the UK create regulations without pressure from somewhere.
No one can be wholly against protectionist regulations as long as they are transparently such, and the value to the consumer in higher prices is protecting the environment or local community cohesion, or greater economic activity benefitting the wider economy.
I can think of plenty of examples of regulations purporting to protect consumers that suit some big businesses in the EU and harm businesses in the UK, are based on no evidence that consumers need the the protection or that they are effective, and can be dropped without any impact on UK consumers as soon as we exit the EU.
I am happy to accept the idea that the UK can discriminate between regulations that are devices to protect vested interests the UK consumer no longer has to pay for after leaving the EU, or do not have to be maintained in order to gain access to an export market and can be dropped or amended; compared to regulations that should be retained to protect genuine interests of consumers on matters of health and safety.
If you believe every EU regulation without exception is good for the UK and designed to protect consumers, then you will probably not be supportive of a Regulation audit, regardless of the evidence in favour of reducing them.
Your regular reminder that you include the EU directive stipulating a 2 year Europe - wide guarantee on consumer goods as one of these 'ineffective' regulations. You argue that manufacturers simply increase the price to cover the cost of this increased provision of service. However
1. You could not explain (given the apparent power of "Brussels") how it was that the UK had failed to implement this directive, leaving UK consumers with only 12 months, unless they are wise enough to shop at John Lewis.
2. Despite then having the ideal benchmark for your theory, you were unable to provide any evidence of generally cheaper prices in the UK than in Germany for the same goods, while I have plenty of evidence that many of the same goods are cheaper in Germany than in the UK.
Most embarrassing thing this week, is the Tories wanting to fuck the country over for a tiny industry like fishing. Utter scum
Funny thing is that taking back control would mean Scottish companies having no competition for fishing in British waters. Price rises for the consumer?
Most embarrassing thing this week, is the Tories wanting to fuck the country over for a tiny industry like fishing. Utter scum
Funny thing is that taking back control would mean Scottish companies having no competition for fishing in British waters. Price rises for the consumer?
Depends on whether tariff free access can be arranged for the fish types that UK consumers eat.
Or, indeed, in the absence of such agreements, whether we can be persuaded to change tastes.
But, whatever happens, I'd be surprised if the UK fishing industry finds the UK Government prepared to sacrifice trade deals to protect it.
Listen to lbc all day all these questions are answered.... And proper people call in on both sides... Oh wait... Not between 10-13.00... He thinks he is funny.
Listen to lbc all day all these questions are answered.... And proper people call in on both sides... Oh wait... Not between 10-13.00... He thinks he is funny.
You should ring up. Embarrass yourself there, you moronic mouthbreather.
I don't see how, at this stage, anyone can provide any definitive answers about the future relationship - let alone a radio station.
Thought you guys had all the answers... After all you definitely want it to fail as you can say you said so.... Has if not occurred to you apart from me a wum.... theres no one else to argue with..... The brexiters are bored with you.
I don't see how, at this stage, anyone can provide any definitive answers about the future relationship - let alone a radio station.
Thought you guys had all the answers... After all you definitely want it to fail as you can say you said so.... Has if not occurred to you apart from me a wum.... theres no one else to argue with..... The brexiters are bored with you.
You know you mentioned answers? Have you an answer to the question of the border on the island of Ireland?
I don't see how, at this stage, anyone can provide any definitive answers about the future relationship - let alone a radio station.
Thought you guys had all the answers... After all you definitely want it to fail as you can say you said so.... Has if not occurred to you apart from me a wum.... theres no one else to argue with..... The brexiters are bored with you.
Well, the answer that I prefer, to avoid all of the potential pitfalls of Brexit, was always (and remains) remaining a full member of the European Union.
However, I accept that I lost, but am watching with bemusement the approach being taken by HMG.
From my perspective, over here, I am really struggling to see any part of Brexit that will improve matters in Northern Ireland.
PS I've always accepted that you are being thran, rather than being a WUM - it's your Irish heritage breaking through....
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.
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.
I know you find it difficult to believe, but regulations, dressed up as consumer protection, are often used to protect vested interests of businesses to create barriers to entry to a market to reduce competition. They are effectively non-financial tariffs to get round WTO rules, and very difficult to challenge. It's mainly big business that have the connections to lobby for protectionist regulations, unlike say the fragmented UK fishing industry composed of many small businesses who would like some protectionist regulations. Neither the EU nor the UK create regulations without pressure from somewhere.
No one can be wholly against protectionist regulations as long as they are transparently such, and the value to the consumer in higher prices is protecting the environment or local community cohesion, or greater economic activity benefitting the wider economy.
I can think of plenty of examples of regulations purporting to protect consumers that suit some big businesses in the EU and harm businesses in the UK, are based on no evidence that consumers need the the protection or that they are effective, and can be dropped without any impact on UK consumers as soon as we exit the EU.
I am happy to accept the idea that the UK can discriminate between regulations that are devices to protect vested interests the UK consumer no longer has to pay for after leaving the EU, or do not have to be maintained in order to gain access to an export market and can be dropped or amended; compared to regulations that should be retained to protect genuine interests of consumers on matters of health and safety.
If you believe every EU regulation without exception is good for the UK and designed to protect consumers, then you will probably not be supportive of a Regulation audit, regardless of the evidence in favour of reducing them.
Quite a lot in there I'd argue is just basic strawman arguing. I've never said, "... I believe every EU regulation without exception is good for the UK and designed to protect consumers..." for example. No one has. You're just going down the "Well, you think the EU is perfect!" nonsense in that.
But regardless, I asked if you had any specific examples in mind to substantiate your view why it should be, "...obvious to everyone that the EU is run for the benefit of big business over the interests of citizens". You may be right, but you haven't provided any evidence or any specific examples illustrating your point. If it's that obvious why not?
Now you're claiming that there are, "...plenty of examples of regulations purporting to protect consumers that suit some big businesses in the EU and harm businesses in the UK, are based on no evidence that consumers need the protection or that they are effective..."
Again, what examples of these regulations that harm UK businesses, have no justification and are not doing the job they were introduced for?
I shouldn't have to say this, but apparently I do, but for the record I'm not saying that every piece of EU law is a rip roaring success right across the board and everyone's a winner. Sometimes there are losers in a situation, like the smoking ban and the subsequent impact on some businesses, but on balance I do believe that we have benefited greatly as consumers from our EU membership and the joined up regulatory approach that comes from that.
MiFID II Regulations that have taken 7 years to bring to the table are supposedly to improve transparency of asset managers activities and costs. It will not allow firms to use research information they have received in return for providing services, they must pay up front for a specific research resource. Trouble is it's the SME market which relies on small brokers to help them raise capital using the research obtained third hand. The large companies pay zillions to professionals for bespoke research already.
So SME's are going to struggle without the ability to raise capital on the European exchanges, being unable to afford the fees for bespoke research they need to support capital raising initiatives. Smaller firms in the financial services area will be unable to afford the regulatory compliance costs associated with record keeping that in 99% of cases will never be of any value.
Consumers may well benefit from lower costs in the long run, but who pays for it? - small businesses.
Wtf is all this fish dumping nonsense all about then???
I think it was the swearing and aggression?
You may may be slightly to the right @A-R-T-H-U-R but you are always quick with the humour.
Thank you, sir. I like to think of myself as straight down the middle, though on CL I can see how that is viewed as dressing to the right. I'll have a word with my tailor.
Wasn't farage on the fishing committee but never turned up or voted?
In his defence, because I would hate to see anyone besmirch his good name, that's not entirely true.
He was on the Committee (naturally to defend British fishing interests) and, very unfortunately, missed a certain number of its meetings, but it is untrue to say that he never turned up to any of its meetings whilst he was a member.
He did, once...
We should appropriately salute him for the level of his dedication in serving the electorate, looking to advance the British cause in the Committee.
He only missed a paltry 41 of the 42 meetings, so, in or around a 2.4% attendance rate.
It's a mystery why it is that the good people of a number of English Parliamentary constituencies have failed to recognise his sterling qualities and insisted on electing others instead of him.
Comments
At a guess, I'd suggest that most of the UK team are drawn from current or recent UKREP/Seconded National Expert staff in Brussels.
Though a cynic might suggest stressing the ability and hard work of the UK team might act as some kind of smokescreen for any perceived UK loss in the talks over the weekend.
Mind you, he could just have been showing Davis up.
No one can be wholly against protectionist regulations as long as they are transparently such, and the value to the consumer in higher prices is protecting the environment or local community cohesion, or greater economic activity benefitting the wider economy.
I can think of plenty of examples of regulations purporting to protect consumers that suit some big businesses in the EU and harm businesses in the UK, are based on no evidence that consumers need the the protection or that they are effective, and can be dropped without any impact on UK consumers as soon as we exit the EU.
I am happy to accept the idea that the UK can discriminate between regulations that are devices to protect vested interests the UK consumer no longer has to pay for after leaving the EU, or do not have to be maintained in order to gain access to an export market and can be dropped or amended; compared to regulations that should be retained to protect genuine interests of consumers on matters of health and safety.
If you believe every EU regulation without exception is good for the UK and designed to protect consumers, then you will probably not be supportive of a Regulation audit, regardless of the evidence in favour of reducing them.
But regardless, I asked if you had any specific examples in mind to substantiate your view why it should be, "...obvious to everyone that the EU is run for the benefit of big business over the interests of citizens". You may be right, but you haven't provided any evidence or any specific examples illustrating your point. If it's that obvious why not?
Now you're claiming that there are, "...plenty of examples of regulations purporting to protect consumers that suit some big businesses in the EU and harm businesses in the UK, are based on no evidence that consumers need the protection or that they are effective..."
Again, what examples of these regulations that harm UK businesses, have no justification and are not doing the job they were introduced for?
I shouldn't have to say this, but apparently I do, but for the record I'm not saying that every piece of EU law is a rip roaring success right across the board and everyone's a winner. Sometimes there are losers in a situation, like the smoking ban and the subsequent impact on some businesses, but on balance I do believe that we have benefited greatly as consumers from our EU membership and the joined up regulatory approach that comes from that.
1. You could not explain (given the apparent power of "Brussels") how it was that the UK had failed to implement this directive, leaving UK consumers with only 12 months, unless they are wise enough to shop at John Lewis.
2. Despite then having the ideal benchmark for your theory, you were unable to provide any evidence of generally cheaper prices in the UK than in Germany for the same goods, while I have plenty of evidence that many of the same goods are cheaper in Germany than in the UK.
Or, indeed, in the absence of such agreements, whether we can be persuaded to change tastes.
But, whatever happens, I'd be surprised if the UK fishing industry finds the UK Government prepared to sacrifice trade deals to protect it.
You know you mentioned answers? Have you an answer to the question of the border on the island of Ireland?
However, I accept that I lost, but am watching with bemusement the approach being taken by HMG.
From my perspective, over here, I am really struggling to see any part of Brexit that will improve matters in Northern Ireland.
PS I've always accepted that you are being thran, rather than being a WUM - it's your Irish heritage breaking through....
https://gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691366/20180319_DRAFT_WITHDRAWAL_AGREEMENT.pdf
Mainly the intellectual property bits (50-57) I'm interested in.
So SME's are going to struggle without the ability to raise capital on the European exchanges, being unable to afford the fees for bespoke research they need to support capital raising initiatives. Smaller firms in the financial services area will be unable to afford the regulatory compliance costs associated with record keeping that in 99% of cases will never be of any value.
Consumers may well benefit from lower costs in the long run, but who pays for it? - small businesses.
Is that specific enough?
I like to think of myself as straight down the middle, though on CL I can see how that is viewed as dressing to the right.
I'll have a word with my tailor.
He was on the Committee (naturally to defend British fishing interests) and, very unfortunately, missed a certain number of its meetings, but it is untrue to say that he never turned up to any of its meetings whilst he was a member.
He did, once...
We should appropriately salute him for the level of his dedication in serving the electorate, looking to advance the British cause in the Committee.
He only missed a paltry 41 of the 42 meetings, so, in or around a 2.4% attendance rate.
It's a mystery why it is that the good people of a number of English Parliamentary constituencies have failed to recognise his sterling qualities and insisted on electing others instead of him.