Brexit negotiations

[Newchodge]

What would be the total cost of the action if there was a court decision? Lower or higher?

No idea. I think, more to the point, they would have had to cancel the contracts with the 2 big suppliers. Settling because it is cheaper than losing is a standard tactic. Not breaking the law in the first place is the better way. Especially a law that you created.

 

[Clinton]

Well he has now cost us £20m more than that.

I'll take your £20 million and raise it by a few billion. Remember Labour's national programme for IT which started off with a cost estimate of £2.3 billion, ballooned to £11.4bn ... and then got scrapped?

£11.4 billion would have paid for doubling disability benefits last year!

That's governments and politicians for you. You should read Margaret Hodge's report on waste in government.

this lying government

You'd be very naive if you thought only Tory governments lie. All governments lie. So, what was your point again?

 

[Mr D]

No idea. I think, more to the point, they would have had to cancel the contracts with the 2 big suppliers. Settling because it is cheaper than losing is a standard tactic. Not breaking the law in the first place is the better way. Especially a law that you created.

So we don't know if he saved money or cost money in this action. But its possible he saved considerable money.

True, they could have done a normal tender process that allowed all interested parties to apply. And we'd have had a contract in place by 2022. The year not the time. Not really helpful later this month though.
Doing things quick means bypassing normal procedures for open tender. Which has a cost.

 

[Mr D]

I'll take your £20 million and raise it by a few billion. Remember Labour's national programme for IT which started off with a cost estimate of £2.3 billion, ballooned to £11.4bn ... and then got scrapped?

That's governments and politicians for you. You should read Margaret Hodge's report on waste in government.


You'd be very naive if you thought only Tory governments lie. All governments lie. So, what's your point again?

Yes, multiple governments have created some of their own problems and spent other people's money without thought of the cost.
Perhaps if we required the assets of MPs and their families to be at risk by their decision making and they only get the asset back if the government makes a profit...? We'd change them spending money...

 

[Newchodge]

I'll take your £20 million and raise it by a few billion. Remember Labour's national programme for IT which started off with a cost estimate of £2.3 billion, ballooned to £11.4bn ... and then got scrapped?

£11.4 billion would have paid for doubling disability benefits last year!

That's governments and politicians for you. You should read Margaret Hodge's report on waste in government.


You'd be very naive if you thought only Tory governments lie. All governments lie. So, what was your point again?

Most governments don't waste money by breaking their own laws.

 

[Mr D]

Most governments don't waste money by breaking their own laws.

Really?
Have there been any like that in the past 120 years or so?

Just out of interest what would you have had the government do regarding getting contracts done in time for leaving? Tendering and a few years delay or not tendering and getting something in place quick?

 

[Clinton]

Most governments don't waste money by breaking their own laws.

Ha, ha, ha.

I could spend all day giving you examples! But it doesn't get much worse than starting illegal wars.

The WMD war resulted not just in wasting money but in a fair few deaths if I recall.

Amazingly, the war criminal is not just still at bay but he's been brokering peace deals in the middle east (and making a ton of capitalist money).

 

[Mr D]

Meat exports affected. Is the Leave campaign going to help the exporters?

Meat exports cancelled because of EU exit confusion
28-Feb-2019 By Rod Addy

Overseas customers have cancelled meat export orders as a result of Brexit uncertainty, according to the British Meat Processors Association (BMPA).

https://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Article/2019/02/28/Meat-exports-cancelled-because-of-EU-exit-confusion

 

[KM-Tiger]

Meat exports affected. Is the Leave campaign going to help the exporters?

Why the leave campaign? It's the govt's job to sort this sort of stuff.

If we didn't have a remain chancellor who has prevented no deal preparation, this probably would not arise.

 

[Mr D]

Why the leave campaign? It's the govt's job to sort this sort of stuff.

If we didn't have a remain chancellor who has prevented no deal preparation, this probably would not arise.

Did the UK Government promise Things would be better or did the leave campaign?

Oh and over 400 MPs voted to reject the deal on offer. Perhaps with that deal this cancellation situation would not be the same.

 

[Jasondb]

I think the issue is the Leave campaign didn't take into account the intransigence of the majority of Remain MPs.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/01/business/us-uk-trade-deal-brexit/index.html

I said months ago this would happen. Hopefully the pennies are dropping now.

In our desperation to build up our FTAs, the US is going to play major hardball to win a more favourable agreement. They can comfortably afford to do so. We cannot.

And now the government will be realising (if they somehow didn't before) the impossibility of the situation. We need a US FTA, but we also know that in domestic politics our electorate won't be fans of lowering standards to this degree. We also know this would make an FTA with the EU even more difficult (which we really need for 45% of our existing trade).

Because of all this, we've vowed not to do it, and in turn, that scuppers the chance of any deal. Game over on that front.

But there's more!

The US document also warns Britain that it will take "appropriate action" if the country negotiates a trade deal with a "non-market country" — which experts said is a reference to China.

An effective FTA with the US AND China? Not happening. We're sleepwalking into a game of political brinkmanship between superpowers. We'll have to pick a side.

So we have two options:

1). Stay close to the EU with which we have almost half our existing trade and share the standards we're keen to keep. But this makes a US trade agreement extremely unlikely.

2). Move closer to the US and deregulate. But this would make trade agreements with the EU and China considerably more difficult, and we need an EU FTA to have any hope of solving the backstop issue. Not to mention the lack of palatability for lower standards and rights amongst us Brits.

Option 1 is the least popular amongst Brexiteers, but the most likely and arguably the only feasible option on the table. This means we end up in a worse trade position than we were before, but now we won't have a seat at the table to influence the standards and regulations we align with.

It's simple: We were sold a lie. Having a favourable trade deal with the EU, US, China and other countries sounds great, but it's not happening and never will. It's not within the realms of reality. Not by a long shot.

People need to accept this and ask themselves if they still want to leave. If they do, fine. But we will end up poorer and with far less influence than we've ever had before. If people think being an EU member makes us a vassal state, just watch what happens after we've left.

 

[Newchodge]

It is, of course, all the fault of the intransigent EU and a Remain government failing to negotiate the perfect deal which was ours for the asking. (Just so that all the Brexit supporters don't have to trot out their standard answers, I thought I'd do it for them).

 

[Mr D]

People need to accept this and ask themselves if they still want to leave. If they do, fine. But we will end up poorer and with far less influence than we've ever had before. If people think being an EU member makes us a vassal state, just watch what happens after we've left.

Only relevant however in the event of a 2nd, 3rd, 4th referendum on leaving.

 

[Mr D]

It is, of course, all the fault of the intransigent EU and a Remain government failing to negotiate the perfect deal which was ours for the asking. (Just so that all the Brexit supporters don't have to trot out their standard answers, I thought I'd do it for them).

The perfect deal that required the other side to roll over and agree to everything the leave campaign had promised voters? That perfect deal?
Otherwise I have no idea what perfect deal you could be thinking of.

 

[Clinton]

I said months ago this would happen. Hopefully the pennies are dropping now.

You read Sad Sack news and get very excited and agitated every time there's some minor nonsense in the news. As speaker Bercow would say, you need to calm down man!

The US has made the first move eager to do a trade deal with us and is setting out their opening position to get a head start (and that's before we've even left). They are keen to get Britain on their side before the UK does a deal with China.

Instead of sticking to the Remain media, you should broaden your reading to get a better perspective on these things. Here's a slightly more balanced version of the same news.

A Whitehall source downplayed the stance on agriculture set out by the US document, suggesting the US government is bound by law to make demands on behalf of its farmers at the start of trade talks....The UK's own negotiating objectives for a US trade deal are expected to be published by the Department for International Trade (DIT) in the coming weeks, which should include the UK's own position

So, no, the sky is not falling on your head! The US posted their opening position, that's it. China will, no doubt, want to compete with that. Both see the UK as a fantastic trading partner and will want her onside.

Even if your entire reading is the Remain media, I note you don't take any notice of articles like this one in the Guardian.

The US has lent its backing to Britain (on complex financial derivatives business ) after Brexit ... In a joint announcement ... the two countries said they would take every step to ensure the continued trading of derivatives across the Atlantic under every Brexit eventuality (and protect the £230tn of derivatives contracts traded in the UK every year).

The new agreement between the US and the UK could help strengthen the City’s position as a leading global financial centre.

Strengthen our position? Oh no! I thought we were going down the toilet. And it's the Guardian admitting that our financial sector could do even better after Brexit! How do I put this? Oh wait, here we go, "I said months ago this would happen."

The big money, big deals, big relationships ain't going nowhere. The trade deals will fall in place. We need to get the hell out of the EU first.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

The US has made the first move eager to do a trade deal with us and is setting out their opening position to get a head start (and that's before we've even left). They are keen to get Britain on their side before the UK does a deal with China.

That's a big pair of rose-tinted spectacles you have on there.

The problem is your theory defies all logic. Really, it does. It's an objective fact that the UK is in a far weaker negotiating position than the US, and that the US will take the opportunity to demand major concessions.

One of the main reasons a US/EU FTA has never happened, and will be very difficult to implement, is the major difference in standards and regulations. It's what prevents a large number of major US industries gaining a foothold.

We have made clear that we don't want to lower these standards, so what do you expect the world's largest superpower to do? Do you think their $20 trillion economy of 325 million people is going to raise theirs and radically reshape their internal markets so our $2.8 trillion economy of 66 million people doesn't have to? Remembering, of course, that throughout this we'll have lost what underpins 70% of our global trade while virtually nothing would have changed on their side?

To be frank this is delusion of the highest order.

From what you say it's like no matter who we face, whether it's the EU, China, the US or anyone else, the UK is always king. Like they have nothing as leverage against us, while we hold all the aces. You're a smart man Clinton, and I honestly have doubts that you truly believe half of what you're saying.

Instead of sticking to the Remain media, you should broaden your reading to get a better perspective on these things. Here's a slightly more balanced version of the same news.

I would hope in this debate that everyone is above taking particular media stories ad verbum. However they're written, the underlying information remains the same.

You can replace the news article I linked to with any other. It wouldn't change the content of my post.

 

[Newchodge]

You're a smart man Clinton, and I honestly have doubts that you truly believe half of what you're saying.

Source?

 

[Clinton]

It's an objective fact that the UK is in a far weaker negotiating position than the US, and that the US will take the opportunity to demand major concessions.

Relative size was the argument trotted out back in the day when you lot (and the Chancellor and the IMF and lots of others) were arguing that our financial sector would be decimated if we choose to leave the EU.

As per evidence in my last post, our financial sector looks like it'll do even better!

And you missed the news that the world's largest sovereign fund said it doesn't care what happens with Brexit - hard or soft or not at all - Britain is a super investment opportunity and it is going to increase its investment in the UK.

People with the big money are betting on an independent UK doing fantastically well.

Even the EU has caved with respect clearing - despite their larger size (!) and all their sabre rattling - and have agreed to let Euro clearing continue in London (initially for a year, but that will just continue indefinitely because the EU realises it would be stupid in the extreme to move Euro clearing to Frankfurt. This is something I pointed out years ago!)

The relative size argument is nonsense. And you're still talking that nonsense.

Countries of different sizes do deals all the time. It's not the size of the country, but the size of their trade with us that determines which side has a slight advantage in the negotiations (and they have a slight advantage because they import more from us than they export to us... not because they have a larger economy!)

But, the clue is in the word negotiation. Both sides make concessions and reach a deal that works for both sides. That's what will happen. If you think the US is not going to make any concessions (because of all that BS about their $20 trillion economy) then you've no idea how these things work!

 

[KM-Tiger]

We have made clear that we don't want to lower these standards,

Is it really a lowering of standards to recognise different standards? Isn't that what mutual recognition means?

For instance the infamous chlorine-washed chicken? Americans are not dropping like flies from eating it, so why should we? The US sees it as a public health no brainer, and interestingly so does the EU, but only for fruit and vegetables.

If there is concern, then why not just insist on clear labelling and let consumers make their choice.

 

[Clinton]

Something else you lot missed: UK signs WTO deal so British companies can continue to bid for EU contracts.

The EU wasn't happy about the UK continuing to be part of the GPA after Brexit, but continuity was in everybody's interests so

...the European Union, Montenegro and Switzerland had to amend their own membership terms to ensure continuity.

 

[Newchodge]

Is it really a lowering of standards to recognise different standards? Isn't that what mutual recognition means?

For instance the infamous chlorine-washed chicken? Americans are not dropping like flies from eating it, so why should we? The US sees it as a public health no brainer, and interestingly so does the EU, but only for fruit and vegetables.

If there is concern, then why not just insist on clear labelling and let consumers make their choice.

There is no animal welfare concern for fruit and vegetables (yet, who knows what the vegan argument may be) the argument against using post death disinfection for animals is that it enables appalling conditions in the producers and abattoirs. According to the EU it is an animal welfare issue. I don't have a problem with that assessment.

Forgetting chlorine washing for a moment, what about hormone use in animals to increase body weight, and therefore, yield, when those hormones enter the food chaim and can have serious adverse effects on human consumers?

 

[Newchodge]

I
If there is concern, then why not just insist on clear labelling and let consumers make their choice.

But that impinges on the Ireland problem. We may change our regulations, but the EU will not. How does the EU prevent (cheaper) imports through the UK if we de-regulate, without a hard border?

Also, if we believe that our regulations are right, is it appropriate to allow the poor of our country to buy food that falls below our standards?

 

[Clinton]

.. what about hormone use in animals to increase body weight, and therefore, yield, when those hormones enter the food chaim and can have serious adverse effects on human consumers?

The use of hormones in this way is a problem even long before meat enters the food chain. It's an animal welfare issue.

And the EU has a much, much better record on animal welfare than the US. That's one of the reasons I voted Remain.

But, we are a nation of many contradictions. We talk a lot about animal welfare and yet we allow barbaric methods of slaughter because we don't want to appear "racist"! Thousands of animals are slaughtered every single day in a brutal and painful way, without stunning, because of a small minority.

How does the EU prevent (cheaper) imports through the UK if we de-regulate, without a hard border?

That's their problem, not ours.

They should have thought about all these things, given Cameron a better deal and prevented a Referendum.

 

[Newchodge]

The use of hormones in this way is a problem even long before meat enters the food chain. It's an animal welfare issue.

And the EU has a much, much better record on animal welfare than the US. That's one of the reasons I voted Remain.

But, we are a nation of many contradictions. We talk a lot about animal welfare and yet we allow barbaric methods of slaughter because we don't want to appear "racist"! Thousands of animals are slaughtered every single day in a brutal and painful way, without stunning, because of a small minority of vocal opponents to humane slaughter.


That's their problem, not ours.

They should have thought about all these things, given Cameron a better deal and prevented a Referendum.

That is the most pathetic response I have seen among myriad pathetic responses from an alleged Remain voter. Congratulations.

 

[Mr D]

There is no animal welfare concern for fruit and vegetables (yet, who knows what the vegan argument may be) the argument against using post death disinfection for animals is that it enables appalling conditions in the producers and abattoirs. According to the EU it is an animal welfare issue. I don't have a problem with that assessment.

Forgetting chlorine washing for a moment, what about hormone use in animals to increase body weight, and therefore, yield, when those hormones enter the food chaim and can have serious adverse effects on human consumers?

If you don't like hormone use in animals then you can choose not to eat any animal that you believe may have had hormone treatments.

Just don't start making decisions for people who have different concerns.

Oh and appalling conditions inside an abbatoir? Ever been in one?
My missus used to clean in one - and not the offices. The standards for cleanliness were higher than the office I was working in at the time - a government run office.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

The argument about bleached chicken & hormone beef is a straw-man: how many people arguing this honestly travel to the US, and refuse to eat their food? I’ve never once considered this, and I don’t believe most people would refuse to eat meat there.


However, the NI border is another issue.

How does the EU prevent (cheaper) imports through the UK if we de-regulate, without a hard border?

That's their problem, not ours.

As a signatory to the Belfast Agreement, it’s actually our problem too: we have an obligation to ensure frictionless cooperation between north & south.

They should have thought about all these things, given Cameron a better deal and prevented a Referendum.

Or perhaps Cameron should have thought about our obligations under the Belfast Agreement before calling the referendum. Or even later, May could have considered these before setting her red lines – relying on the statements from the Leave campaigns that we would remain in the customs union & single market when leaving the EU, rather than draw such harsh terms that make our exit impossible.


The idea of blaming the EU for being stubborn, sticking to their rules, is such a tedious one: it’s an institution based on rules – take those away, and it doesn’t exist.



Karl Limpert

 

[Clinton]

Er, they take the rules away when it suits them. They bend the rules when it suits them. They change the rules when it suits them.

They survive on their ability to break rules. While we were voting in a Referendum because they refused to be flexible with us, they were breaking rules for France, just because it's France!

Another article:

The EU is often called a rules-based organisation, which is ironic given the alacrity with which it breaks them

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Er, they take the rules away when it suits them. They bend the rules when it suits them. They change the rules when it suits them.

They survive on their ability to fudge rules. While we were voting in a Referendum because they refused to be flexible with us, they were breaking rules for France, just because it's France!

Damn, that's rude. Using their own rules for their members own benefit, rather than the benefit of others. Have they no standards of decency or sharing?


Karl Limpert

 

[Cobby]

With the intransigence over the backstop arrangements of the EU to let us leave with dignity, regardless of whatever side you voted for in brexit, and the establishment of a european army, will it lead to the UK leaving Nato in say the next 10 years and just becoming a defence force, which would save a huge amount of money

I'm sure there's a sentence in there somewhere, but I think your points are:
- EU is punishing us
- something about the EU Army
- Abandoning NATO

The first two are simply wrong, and it's surprising to see Brexiters still pumping that particular pedal, and NATO is pretty important at the moment given global positioning of hostile powers and their interference in our democracies (e.g. helping get the Leave vote).

But, we are a nation of many contradictions. We talk a lot about animal welfare and yet we allow barbaric methods of slaughter because we don't want to appear "racist"! Thousands of animals are slaughtered every single day in a brutal and painful way, without stunning, because of a small minority.

You make a good point here (although as usual, in a terrible way), it's absolutely not about being called "racist", it's about religious freedoms, (Jewish and Muslim).

Religious slaughter is objectively against animal welfare standards and definitely should be banned, however most religious slaughter in the UK currently involves stunning the animals first, in line with the rest of our animal industry.

 

[Cobby]

There is no animal welfare concern for fruit and vegetables (yet, who knows what the vegan argument may be) the argument against using post death disinfection for animals is that it enables appalling conditions in the producers and abattoirs. According to the EU it is an animal welfare issue. I don't have a problem with that assessment.

Forgetting chlorine washing for a moment, what about hormone use in animals to increase body weight, and therefore, yield, when those hormones enter the food chaim and can have serious adverse effects on human consumers?

Additional concerns include the increased use of prophylactic antibiotics.

"Yield" and thus "Profit" are the only motivators in their "standards" and lowering our own is not only unnecessary, it's morally reprehensible.

That is the most pathetic response I have seen among myriad pathetic responses from an alleged Remain voter. Congratulations.

The internet has long been filled with anonymous folks with dubious claims of expertise and the latest iteration of that is those arguing the absolute polar opposite while claiming to have previously been on your side.

These days it's claims of "I voted Remain but..." followed by a quite surprising slew of views originating in solid right-wing ideology and Leave campaign dishonesty; it makes it impossible to believe their claims of having previously been a Remainer.

 

[simon field]

it makes it impossible to believe their claims of having previously been a Remainer.

You should believe it though, because he’s telling the truth. He means it.

I was going to vote leave, but in the end I asked my kids (15 & 17 at the time) what they’d suggest - remain. So that’s what I did.

Now we all know ‘so much more’ I’d absolutely vote leave! Because the ‘so much more’ is just an increase in the frequency and intensity of the same complete tosh that they’ve trotted out in a desperate attempt to stop what we’re doing.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

The argument about bleached chicken & hormone beef is a straw-man: how many people arguing this honestly travel to the US, and refuse to eat their food? I’ve never once considered this, and I don’t believe most people would refuse to eat meat there.

But on holiday you are not eating it everyday. Regular consumption is increasing buttock size in women and causing men to grow breasts.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

https://inews.co.uk/news/consumer/chlorine-chicken-washed-chlorinated-germs-illness-safe/

Not sure why this is illustarted with images of perfect chickens!

 

[thetiger2015]

For instance the infamous chlorine-washed chicken? Americans are not dropping like flies from eating it, so why should we? The US sees it as a public health no brainer, and interestingly so does the EU, but only for fruit and vegetables.

Not sure if you can hold the US up as an example of a health conscious nation though?

Also, surely we want to be eating as healthily as we can and thus the consumption of meat should be reduced in our diet anyway. Cheap burgers and £1 chickens are not the way to improve our general health. Expensive meats, locally produced and supplied from a farm you can actually visit should be the aim.

When people say 'Oh but you don't have to eat the chlorinated chicken'....well...gee...thanks but I was fine with the chicken I got before, that was traceable to a UK farm and now I have to completely change my diet because we want to import cheap stuff that's packed full of unknown extras and under cuts our own farmers...surely that goes against Brexit entirely??? What on earth is going on....

 

[MBE2017]

Cheap burgers and £1 chickens are not the way to improve our general health. Expensive meats, locally produced and supplied from a farm you can actually visit should be the aim.

When people say 'Oh but you don't have to eat the chlorinated chicken'....well...gee...thanks but I was fine with the chicken I got before, that was traceable to a UK farm and now I have to completely change my diet because we want to import cheap stuff that's packed full of unknown extras and under cuts our own farmers...surely that goes against Brexit entirely??? What on earth is going on....

You forget the huge proportion of the population who have little choice but to buy cheap meat, £1 meals from Iceland etc due to their low income. The same sector which also supported Brexit to try and improve their lot.

People who have very little or have near nothing don’t fear losing a little bit more, their eyes are on improving their lives, they probably enjoy finer cuts of meat and more expensive wines as well.

 

[Mr D]

Not sure if you can hold the US up as an example of a health conscious nation though?

Also, surely we want to be eating as healthily as we can and thus the consumption of meat should be reduced in our diet anyway. Cheap burgers and £1 chickens are not the way to improve our general health. Expensive meats, locally produced and supplied from a farm you can actually visit should be the aim.

When people say 'Oh but you don't have to eat the chlorinated chicken'....well...gee...thanks but I was fine with the chicken I got before, that was traceable to a UK farm and now I have to completely change my diet because we want to import cheap stuff that's packed full of unknown extras and under cuts our own farmers...surely that goes against Brexit entirely??? What on earth is going on....

The issue of what to eat is down to the individual though. My body, my choice is not just a female reproductive mantra.

Expensive meats locally produced and supplied from a farm you can visit? ROTFLOL!!!
Its all right if you can afford it. Or even want to spend time looking around a farm. Know what you are looking for? If you don't then what is the point in visiting?
Can you tell the difference between a well raised cow and a cow that's not so well raised but has been fattened for slaughter being paraded in front of you?

There are those of us who don't mind where the meat comes from or what farm its from. Certainly no desire to go see some cows before picking some steak up. And rather like having the cheap meat, what with being able to afford to eat it.

What is the benefit to the consumer in having expensive meat produced on a farm they can visit?

 

[Mr D]

You forget the huge proportion of the population who have little choice but to buy cheap meat, £1 meals from Iceland etc due to their low income. The same sector which also supported Brexit to try and improve their lot.

People who have very little or have near nothing don’t fear losing a little bit more, their eyes are on improving their lives, they probably enjoy finer cuts of meat and more expensive wines as well.

This is the same portion of the population with the £500 plus smartphone and the top ups being done every few days?

 

[dan19900]

But on holiday you are not eating it everyday. Regular consumption is increasing buttock size in women and causing men to grow breasts.

So we should ban British milk? It's got a lot more estrogen in than any US meat we're going to eat.

 

[Mr D]

So we should ban British milk? It's got a lot more estrogen in than any US meat we're going to eat.

Ummm… you know that once you stop growing that milk isn't needed for your diet so much? Its nice to drink and flavours our tea, it is not actually a requirement for most adults. Useful for us to drink, not so much essential.

Few creatures have milk of another species, even humans tended not to have much milk except for the children. Until more recent times when milk started being produced all year round.