Another new Brexit thread

[mcfc1632]

1. Incorrect. The UK has a responsibility to manage its own borders as we expect other countries to manage theirs. The UK also accepted this responsibility. The idea that this was going to be solely down to the EU and/or Ireland was always a nonsense and was deservedly treated with contempt for its lack of honesty.

2. I cannot attest to this either way so I will accept your assertion. However it does feel somewhat at odds with your prior statement specifically we had no obligation to impose and manage a land border but we had an obligation to impose and manage a sea border?

A good article and if we start accepting that the upcoming ‘trade negotiations’ are not just about trade but a projection of power, and in our case also falls under the ‘EU’s Good Neighbourhood Policy’, then we can stop mentioning trade surpluses, German carmakers or whatever.

You are wrong

1. My post was in answer to your previous one about what I have previously said - now you are changing the goalposts. I was clear that the UK should not propose a hard border with the ROI and that there would not be one.

I was right

2. You have no need to grudgingly accept my assertion because you cannot attest - go and do a search - or be more genuine in your reply.

It was about May/June time that I was clear that, IMO, the outcome would be the border in the Irish sea solution.

I was right

Why cannot you guys just say versions of - fair enough I accept I was wrong on this occasion.

You are indeed correct often - it does not destroy your credibility to admit when you are occasionally wrong - quite the opposite I would suggest

 

[west didsblue]

Why do we need to replicate EASA?? EASA didn't exist until 15 years ago when they took over European aviation and started overtaking country regulatory bodies by for example standardising runway markings and alsorts of rubbish.

The UK CAA is today the UK aviation regulatory body and it still will be after Brexit. The only thing the CAA will do differently is it will make rules and not take them.

We can remain a part of EASA either as some sort of 3rd country member (if they allow us to be, Norway is!) or at least as a participatory in some form because it is just common sense.

In the worst case, we should be able to negotiate technical cooperations and agreements that facilitate normality as most major non-EU countries have done.

Obviously the downfall is we won't have a say on European aviation rules but European aviation does not exist in a space where planes only fly because of the existence of EU rulemaking........

For someone who works in the industry you're not demonstrating much knowledge of how it works. EASA took over the function of the CAA Safety Regulation Group and many SRG employees were seconded into EASA. Many of the regulations generated by SRG were incorporated with EASA regulations and aligned with regulations from other national bodies. If we don't remain members of EASA as a result of the deal, the SRG would have to be reconstituted and I assume it would adopt all EASA regulations rather than start writing equivalents. It is then likely to adopt all rule changes generated by EASA as they happen so we will end up being a rule taker like we will be in all other areas, rather than having a say in their creation. We will of course be able to not incorporate new EASA regulations but that could prevent UK operators from flying into EU countries so it's more than likely we'll stay aligned with EASA. EASA regs are already closely aligned with FAA regulations and most countries use one or the other as the basis for their own regulations as will we. The upshot is that we will have the overhead of having a new organisation to replicate EASA's function in the UK for no additional benefit.

 

[mcfc1632]

You should tutor those that Phone in to James O’Brien. Or try it yourself? I would pay good money to listen to that ;-)
Ps. My post in no way indicates I have flipped by the way. Just distilling what I thought was the most consistent messages heard on here from those that voted to leave the EU.

Indeed - and no your post did not come across as if your have 'flipped' - so to speak - just able to assess and reflect on the views of others - even if they oppose yours

 

[Vic]

What would you suggest Gove's answer would be?

I am guessing something like...….

"That was clearly our ambition, but it was predicated on the EU acting in good faith and not seeking to use the negotiations to date, supported by their sycophants at Westminster, to hamstring and coerce the UK into positions that are detrimental to the UK's interests.

Also James, I am sure that you will have clear recall of the promises made by the key Remain representatives - including the PM and Chancellor - that a vote to Leave certainly meant that the UK would Leave the SM and CU...….

It is just a fact that the attitude of the EU has meant that not all ambitions can be realised - but certainly I would think that the majority of the Leave voters that I represented would place the realisation of the Remain commitments of leaving the SM and CU are the priority. I am also sure therefore that they would forgive me if my scope of ambition is 'perhaps' not going to be realised due to the attitudes - to date - of the EU.

Surely only a pedantic and boring person would be going on and on about it years later - you are not such a person are you James?"

That seems a likely and appropriate response don't you think?

Nah, not really.

A. It's not what you were saying last year.
B. Do you not think the EU would have welcomed the UK staying in that free trade zone?
C. Why don't we stay in it now?

 

[Vic]

Shock / horror No.1

The lead negotiator of the EU, during key period leading up to commencement of negotiations and recognising the sycophancy at Westminster that undermines the UK, chooses to suggest a range of possible outcomes that will set hares running and feed the sycophancy and be possibly debilitating to the UK's negotiating position.

Shock / horror No. 2

Remainers desperately scraping around for something / anything - no matter now weak - seek to use it as if it represents some 'nugget' - even if it is really nothing more than yet more mineral pyrite

Maybe blueinsa was making the assumption that we will do a deal but if there is no deal then UK airlines would not be able to start new routes between any two other EU countries.

You're just being you. How can it be debilitating to the UK position to know what happens if we leave with no deal?

 

[Blue Hefner]

Iain Dale is the best on LBC, even as a leave voter, in the height of the Brexit chaos, I completely respected him.

I tend to like him but he made a very cheap comment the other day in regards chlorinated chicken. He made a very lazy point about no-one is bothered eating chlorinated salad, currently - he must know full well the concerns re chicken V salad

Tom Swarbrick is good on LBC

 

[west didsblue]

Fact?

Its not because you have zero clue as to what future agreements will be in place.

If you want to believe because it suits your narrative that UK airlines wont be able to set up routes in the EU then knock yourself out.

Im not buying it nor agreeing with it though, sorry.

Interesting that you're assuming BRINO.
Hope you're right.

 

[Ban-jani]

I tend to like him but he made a very cheap comment the other day in regards chlorinated chicken. He made a very lazy point about no-one is bothered eating chlorinated salad, currently - he must know full well the concerns re chicken V salad

Tom Swarbrick is good on LBC

The hysteria about chlorinated chicken is just that, hysteria.

There are many things we eat and drink over here, such as aspartame, that has wider dangers and I drink too much stuff with that in.

 

[Metal Biker]

The hysteria about chlorinated chicken is just that, hysteria.

There are many things we eat and drink over here, such as aspartame, that has wider dangers and I drink too much stuff with that in.

It annoys me how everything now contains that 'poison' just to get around the sugar tax.

I'd sooner pay the extra.

 

[BobKowalski]

You are wrong

1. My post was in answer to your previous one about what I have previously said - now you are changing the goalposts. I was clear that the UK should not propose a hard border with the ROI and that there would not be one.

2. You have no need to grudgingly accept my assertion because you cannot attest - go and do a search - or be more genuine in your reply.

It was about May/June time that I was clear that, IMO, the outcome would be the border in the Irish sea solution.

It was a polite way of saying I couldn’t be arsed to do a search so I accepted your assertion.

Why cannot you guys just say versions of - fair enough I accept I was wrong on this occasion.

You are indeed correct often - it does not destroy your credibility to admit when you are occasionally wrong - quite the opposite I would suggest

‘Let him without sin cast that particular stone’

And I would gently point out you stated ‘I was right’ twice in this post alone. We are often quick to point out the perceived faults in others that reside in ourselves.

 

[Ban-jani]

It annoys me how everything now contains that 'poison' just to get around the sugar tax.

I'd sooner pay the extra.

I enjoy drinking coke so I mix it up.

I sometimes have normal coke and sometimes zero.

I am conscious too much of either is very dangerous.

 

[yerwot?]

It annoys me how everything now contains that 'poison' just to get around the sugar tax.

I'd sooner pay the extra.

Tate and Lyle brickin' it, :(

 

[mcfc1632]

Nah, not really.

A. It's not what you were saying last year.
B. Do you not think the EU would have welcomed the UK staying in that free trade zone?
C. Why don't we stay in it now?

FFS Vic - you keeping quoting Gove not me

I have not been banging on about a FTZ between random countries

a) so irrelevant - I was just suggesting what Gove might reply to O'Brien in your hypothetical scanario

b) don't greatly care - that would be only one on the list of my desirable outcomes - certainly not mandatory

c) Doh - we are leaving the EU Vic - do try and gain acceptance of this fact. There will be changes.

BTW I notice that you distracted and did not address the good sense within my suggested response

 

[mcfc1632]

Maybe blueinsa was making the assumption that we will do a deal but if there is no deal then UK airlines would not be able to start new routes between any two other EU countries.

You're just being you. How can it be debilitating to the UK position to know what happens if we leave with no deal?

Because you - being you - express a stance from the party that the UK is negotiating with and try and cement it as fact when all it reflects is an hypothetical and highly unlikely outcome based upon a highly unlikely hypotheses which is built on sand.

It just reflects how desperate you have become IMO

 

[mcfc1632]

It was a polite way of saying I couldn’t be arsed to do a search so I accepted your assertion.



‘Let him without sin cast that particular stone’

And I would gently point out you stated ‘I was right’ twice in this post alone. We are often quick to point out the perceived faults in others that reside in ourselves.

Err - because I was right and - well - you were wrong

But I was being polite and you were not

bored now

 

[Blue Hefner]

The hysteria about chlorinated chicken is just that, hysteria.

There are many things we eat and drink over here, such as aspartame, that has wider dangers and I drink too much stuff with that in.

It's more to do with the reasons the chickens need chlorinating in the first place i.e the conditions they are kept in that bother people and for him to pretend otherwise was disingenuous

 

[BobKowalski]

The hysteria about chlorinated chicken is just that, hysteria.

There are many things we eat and drink over here, such as aspartame, that has wider dangers and I drink too much stuff with that in.

It’s an animal welfare issue as much as a health issue.

It’s a bit like eggs. US law demands eggs be kept and sold refrigerated. American eggs are sprayed with chemicals to prevent harmful bacteria because most are laid in factory farm conditions where infection is more likely than in Europe where the emphasis is on better conditions to prevent infection in the first place. It’s the same with chicken as again they are kept in poorer conditions and the chlorine washing is to cleanse the filth in which they are kept.

It’s a clash of cultures as much as anything.

 

[BobKowalski]

Err - because I was right and - well - you were wrong

But I was being polite and you were not

bored now

Bada bing bada boom

 

[Metal Biker]

It's more to do with the reasons the chickens need chlorinating in the first place i.e the conditions they are kept in that bother people and for him to pretend otherwise was disingenuous

That alone is not enough to discredit importing chlorinated chicken. The US also has free range, the Department of Agriculture regulates animal welfare prior to slaughter. We're not dealing with "Cletus the Callous Chicken Farmer" here.

Fact is that CC is some of the cleanest foodstuffs available; the reason the US chlorinates it's chicken produce? Because the US washes ALL it's chicken produces in chlorine prior to consumption regardless of condition. The hysterical assumption is that the US on the whole is "evil to all animals" and still has all animals in horrendous conditions and as a result we should ban CC.

This hooh-hah about CC is verging on the ridiculous. If people made genuine animal welfare arguments and concerns about keeping up animal welfare standards I could get behind their arguments but they don't.

 

[Chippy_boy]

That alone is not enough to discredit importing chlorinated chicken. The US also has free range, the Department of Agriculture regulates animal welfare prior to slaughter. We're not dealing with "Cletus the Callous Chicken Farmer" here.

Fact is that CC is some of the cleanest foodstuffs available; the reason the US chlorinates it's chicken produce? Because the US washes ALL it's chicken produces in chlorine prior to consumption regardless of condition. The hysterical assumption is that the US on the whole is "evil to all animals" and still has all animals in horrendous conditions and as a result we should ban CC.

This hooh-hah about CC is verging on the ridiculous. If people made genuine animal welfare arguments and concerns about keeping up animal welfare standards I could get behind their arguments but they don't.

All it's about is this:

A bunch of people who are dead set against Brexit are leveraging the word "chlorine" to put people off US-imported chicken. Because people think of swimming baths and world war I trenches and don't like the sound of that in connection with the food on their plates.

They have no understanding (nor interest) of the health risks/benefits, nor of animal welfare nor anything else. It's just "chlorinated chicken" = bad. Therefore US trade deal = bad.

Spin and nothing more. Just the same as the backlash against irradiated food. Radiation = bad. And GM crops. Science which people have no clue about, being used as a political lobbying tool.