Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
west didsblue said:
Tell me that one again after the trade deal is done (or not done) and we have found out if that money really is no longer being handed over.
Click to expand...

you mean the eu is like a protectionist racket. If you want to trade in this area you need to cough up?

I recall the Salford gangs used to do that to the businesses in Salford.
 
west didsblue said:
Good job we’re getting all that extra sovereignty then.
Can someone tell me what that means in practice and what positive effect it will have on our lives? Just one example will do.
Click to expand...
The extreme version of the precautionary principle adopted at Lisbon closes down a whole raft of possibilities. We will be free, for example to restart genetic engineering of plants, animals and humans. This is an enormous industry in which China has taken a big lead over USA (stopped on quasi religious grounds) and the EU (hemmed in by the precautionary principle and effectively stopped by Lisbon). We have world class skills in an area which has the potential to alleviate hunger, reduce global warming, and cure diseases. It is not, as some believe, a "frankenstein" science. After Lisbon, even gene editing will be banned in the EU. Together with 'Roundup', also to be banned in EU, the break thru in agriculture is potentially game changing.
 
kevin horlocks wand said:
you mean the eu is like a protectionist racket. If you want to trade in this area you need to cough up?

I recall the Salford gangs used to do that to the businesses in Salford.
Click to expand...
You could read it like that if you wanted but you’d be wrong. Depending on the outcome of the deal we may or may not be participants in various EU agencies which all cost money to run. We would have to pay our share if we’re part of them, as do countries like Norway and Switzerland. Of course we may go our own way on all these things which will cost us a lot more than the EU versions so the funds we save from EU contributions will be spoken for fairly quickly.
 
KS55 said:
The extreme version of the precautionary principle adopted at Lisbon closes down a whole raft of possibilities. We will be free, for example to restart genetic engineering of plants, animals and humans. This is an enormous industry in which China has taken a big lead over USA (stopped on quasi religious grounds) and the EU (hemmed in by the precautionary principle and effectively stopped by Lisbon). We have world class skills in an area which has the potential to alleviate hunger, reduce global warming, and cure diseases. It is not, as some believe, a "frankenstein" science. After Lisbon, even gene editing will be banned in the EU. Together with 'Roundup', also to be banned in EU, the break thru in agriculture is potentially game changing.
Click to expand...
Do you think that the £40 billion worth of agricultural exports to the EU from the UK will carry on regardless of our compliance with EFSA standards relating to GM food, and if not will we find markets around the world to replace exports to the EU?
 
wouldn't mind betting those £billions we won't be sending to the EU won't be coming up here either. There is a Parliament building to refurbish, South Eastern transport infrastructure to spend it on and reductions in corporation tax and higher rate personal taxes to be funded for starters - there will be no new trans-Pennine rail links etc you can bank on that.
 
blueinsa said:
I get you're angry and not happy with the decision to leave and whilst i dont agree, i do respect it.

Problems come when the language you used is seen as a shitty comment which you clearly agree with when it was thrown back at you?

Have a good weekend fella.
Click to expand...
Fuck me - as I am catching up and still 8 hours away from 'the moment' - from these last pages I am coming to the conclusion that the arch-Remainders are indeed not going to man-up and make any effort to get over it - and themselves
 
Vic said:
Obviously the preamble is part of a treaty. To what extent its provisions can be cited as legally enforceable is another matter.

You can cherry pick what was said "at the time" to justify your own view on what people thought they were signing up to. That justifies my repeating that voters were told we would still be in a free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border.
Click to expand...
The preamble is absolutely NOT part of the treaty, it is an introduction by the plenipotentiaries and has no legal effect.
You can read the papers of the time to see all the argument and I have fairly represented it, admittedly in a brief way, but there is no cherry picking. You will see I represented the dilemma by asking open questions at the end.
west didsblue said:
Do you think that the £40 billion worth of agricultural exports to the EU from the UK will carry on regardless of our compliance with EFSA standards relating to GM food, and if not will we find markets around the world to replace exports to the EU?
Click to expand...
We will clearly not be able to export gm goods to the EU, but as China has shown, the rest of the world is a big place!
In any case, a large part of our EU agricultural exports are unlikely to be gm.
 
Last edited:
The crux of what Raab has been saying this morning is that regulatory alignment isn’t in the political declaration agreed between Johnson & the EU and so it isn’t up for discussion.

If the EU insist on putting it on the table then it crosses a UK red line as they won’t agree to it.

Interesting.
 
KS55 said:
We will clearly not be able to export gm goods to the EU, but as China has shown, the rest of the world is a big place!
In any case, the a large part of our EU agricultural exports are unlikely to be gm.
Click to expand...
Our agricultural exports to the EU definitely won’t be unapproved GM because that won’t be allowed.

Rather than get into a technical discussion on a niche area, do you have an example of what our additional sovereignty will do for the 98.5% of the population and 99.4% of our GDP that is not related to agriculture. It’s far from clear that our agricultural sector will be better off anyway if we diverge from EFSA standards on GM.
 
mcfc1632 said:
Fuck me - as I am catching up and still 8 hours away from 'the moment' - from these last pages I am coming to the conclusion that the arch-Remainders are indeed not going to man-up and make any effort to get over it - and themselves
Click to expand...
We’re now discussing what happens next so if all you’re going to do is come on and make stupid comments about manning up you might as well fuck off.
 
KS55 said:
The extreme version of the precautionary principle adopted at Lisbon closes down a whole raft of possibilities. We will be free, for example to restart genetic engineering of plants, animals and humans. This is an enormous industry in which China has taken a big lead over USA (stopped on quasi religious grounds) and the EU (hemmed in by the precautionary principle and effectively stopped by Lisbon). We have world class skills in an area which has the potential to alleviate hunger, reduce global warming, and cure diseases. It is not, as some believe, a "frankenstein" science. After Lisbon, even gene editing will be banned in the EU. Together with 'Roundup', also to be banned in EU, the break thru in agriculture is potentially game changing.
Click to expand...
Brexit means cancer...
 
KS55 said:
The preamble is absolutely NOT part of the treaty, it is an introduction by the plenipotentiaries and has no legal effect.
You can read the papers of the time to see all the argument and I have fairly represented it, admittedly in a brief way, but there is no cherry picking. You will see I represented the dilemma by asking open questions at the end.

We will clearly not be able to export gm goods to the EU, but as China has shown, the rest of the world is a big place!
In any case, a large part of our EU agricultural exports are unlikely to be gm.
Click to expand...
I should make it clear that I was answering @Vic assumption that ever closer union was one of the founding principles, which it was not. Since then, there has been much development of the idea, but the ECJ, for example, cites it only as obiter dicta, not as ratio decidendi.
Here's one view.
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/th...ver-closer-union-among-the-peoples-of-europe/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top