Just because you don’t understand the definition of sovereignty it doesn’t mean that no one else does, and repeatedly trying to pass off your own lack of knowledge as pedantry rather than admit you got it wrong is actually quite amusing.Some posters are simply hiding behind pedantry
The important thing is what it means to the vast majority
Stop creeping.
This has only just happened. But he never explains. He obfuscates. You try, if you think it has been explained, why is it a good idea to allow negotiators not to be restricted by an existing law? (It's part of the government line that these standards are already enshrined in law.)
In any case, it's news as she's chair (for the moment) of a body for high standards in farming, part funded by farmers who feel betrayed. She's biting the hard that feeds her. In case you need a bit of emphasis to assist in why it's an issue:
Farmers betrayed
Liz Webster, chair of campaign group Save British Farming (SBF), said she was shocked by Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s voting decisions.
“It’s more obfuscation and more proof that farmers are being betrayed,” said Ms Webster. “It’s clear that we [farmers] are being frogmarched into retirement.
“In my view, this seriously undermines faith in the Red Tractor assurance scheme.”
She added: “The British public has been misled time and time again by this government, particularly on Brexit and food standards.
“Why did the Conservatives promise in their 2019 election manifesto to uphold farmers’ standards if they have no intention to do so?”
A farming industry leader, who did not want to be named, said: “This is quite worrying. There are quite a few farmers struggling with confidence in Red Tractor at the moment. This appears to confirm some fears.”
Indeed - there are none so blind......It has been, a thousand times and a thousand times you dont read or listen or comprehend and you ask the same question over and over and over..........
Closer but still not there. Thats not what I asked. I didn't ask you about the decision, I asked you about the manner in which that decision was obtained.Let me be clear - no I have never had the feelings you mention 'in the wee small hours' - not on any occasion have I had any regret that a decision to leave the UK was achieved.
I thought that was a pretty unequivocal answer - I was seeking to avoid (as you seem to request) reference to 'both sides lied'Closer but still not there. Thats not what I asked. I didn't ask you about the decision, I asked you about the manner in which that decision was obtained.
Yes. Very insightful. Have a good weekend.I thought that was a pretty unequivocal answer - I was seeking to avoid (as you seem to request) reference to 'both sides lied'
I went further and mentioned the sorts of campaign comments such as by Gove on the scope of the market the UK would have access to gave be no loss of sleep.
If I did some research I am sure that I would find some comments that I would not attach my support to - but they do not readily come to mind
So I will try again for you: and change that line you quoted to:
"....Let me be clear - no I have never had the feelings you mention 'in the wee small hours' - not on any occasion have I had any regret that a decision to leave the UK was achieved.
It surely therefore follows that, overall, the campaign has caused we no loss of sleep and further I was/am amazed that it could attract a level of support that it could defeat, in comparison, the behemoth that was the Remain campaign .
I am sure that If I did some research I would find some comments that I would not attach my support to - but they do not readily come to mind - and, anyway, anything considered 'unsavoury' or that I might find 'appalling' (if I could think of them) had absolutely zero impact on my vote"
Does that help?
One man's pedantry is another man's precision.Just because you don’t understand the definition of sovereignty it doesn’t mean that no one else does, and repeatedly trying to pass off your own lack of knowledge as pedantry rather than admit you got it wrong is actually quite amusing.
Well, as this issue is nothing to do with the EU but about future negotiations with the USA, maybe some more explanation is due.It means exactly what she said it means.
We dont go into a negotiation with our hands tied in such a way as to give the EU any sort of advantage. It doesn't nor will it mean that standards will be abandoned. Its proof that post brexit, standards will be what we have decided they are and given we have the Red Tractor Scheme and have for a long time im not worried that we will be suddenly forced to eat shit Vic.
Meanwhile the EU now realise that the days of sitting opposite with a smirk knowing we dont really mean what we are saying are well and truly over. What we agree to or dont will be 100% our decision.
Well, as this issue is nothing to do with the EU but about future negotiations with the USA, maybe some more explanation is due.
Didn't we legislate to take away any possibility of extending transition (even though we'd lost nearly a year of the original period)? I'm sure you didn't want that on the table.Indeed - there are none so blind......
Perhaps we should go the whole hog and support the UK's negotiating by legislating for is things as well
Let's legislate for maintaining the current level of imports from the EU
Let's legislate for ensuring Irish exports to the EU have guarantees over the time to transit through the UK being no more than currently
There are many more sensible examples that will help our negotiating team I am sure
Sorry to be flippant - but when someone refers to the need in negotiations of keeping available the option of no-deal as making 'some sort of sense' - I doubt their ability to absorb commonsense
What are all those "red lines" about then?Its about "any" negotiation Vic.
You dont tie your hands and you dont give the other side any sort of advantage.
What are all those "red lines" about then?
You toYes. Very insightful. Have a good weekend.
So is protecting UK farming from cheaper lower standard imports a red line or not?Whatever we want them to be. Same for the EU, the Yanks, China....whoever.
You decide if you want to move on a position or not. What you dont do is make it clear to the other side that your red lines are not real, you wont stick to them, you wont walk away which is very much what our Pro/Remain PM did back in the day.
Negotiating in the right way has suddenly got the EU to sit up, take notice and finally admit that their own red lines will also have to be compromised.
It’s not even that. Detailed rule setting ability is nothing to do with sovereignty. It’s like saying that the IET have sovereignty over electrical installation rules. Having the authority to devolve and remove that responsibility is where sovereignty comes in, and any politician saying otherwise is being disingenuous or stupid as is anyone on here passing it off as pedantry.One man's pedantry is another man's precision.
The whole point is that it's our decision to protect standards or not, not the Eu's as they do not decide for us anymore, just as they don't decide for any other non EU country. If it suits us for trade purposes or indeed to ensure quality to stick to EU standards then we will do anyway. If we don't like the post brexit food standards of this govt we can vote them out at the next GE and replace them with a govt that pledges to change them.So is protecting UK farming from cheaper lower standard imports a red line or not?
So far it sounds like it's a red line when the government is talking to UK farmers and consumers and in our sovereign Parliament, but will not be a red line when negotiating with the USA.
And in negotiations, you can hope to get concessions by saying "my hands are tied" but it doesn't work if the other side doesn't believe you. And in this case, the woman charged with promoting high standards puts on her Tory peer robes and is telling the other side that even though the law currently protects against imports to lower standards, our negotiators' hands are not tied, not even by UK law.
The whole point is that it's our decision to protect standards or not, not the Eu's as they do not decide for us anymore, just as they don't decide for any other non EU country. If it suits us for trade purposes or indeed to ensure quality to stick to EU standards then we will do anyway. If we don't like the post brexit food standards of this govt we can vote them out at the next GE and replace them with a govt that pledges to change them.
IndeedWHOOSH!
The whole point is that it's our decision to protect standards or not, not the Eu's as they do not decide for us anymore, just as they don't decide for any other non EU country. If it suits us for trade purposes or indeed to ensure quality to stick to EU standards then we will do anyway. If we don't like the post brexit food standards of this govt we can vote them out at the next GE and replace them with a govt that pledges to change them.
So is protecting UK farming from cheaper lower standard imports a red line or not?
So far it sounds like it's a red line when the government is talking to UK farmers and consumers and in our sovereign Parliament, but will not be a red line when negotiating with the USA.
And in negotiations, you can hope to get concessions by saying "my hands are tied" but it doesn't work if the other side doesn't believe you. And in this case, the woman charged with promoting high standards puts on her Tory peer robes and is telling the other side that even though the law currently protects against imports to lower standards, our negotiators' hands are not tied, not even by UK law.