Brexit: Now What? Part II

[wobs]

Oh...lokk!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-to-eu-jobs-government-position-a7478771.html

But it's all OK.
We don't need those jobs anyway.
It's all fine.
Besides, they're foreign...

Christ on a bike.

We at least need a baseline which will stop us from committing economic suicide. One where the consequences were assured, and bad enough for even our Government to say "hang, despite us having 52% of voters saying they want Brexit, we need to stay, and not be stupid", before we trigger article 50.

Sometimes I dream, but it keeps me sane.

 

[3point14]

We at least need a baseline which will stop us from committing economic suicide. One where the consequences were assured, and bad enough for even our Government to say "hang, despite us having 52% of voters saying they want Brexit, we need to stay, and not be stupid", before we trigger article 50.

Sometimes I dream, but it keeps me sane.

Ah, no, I'm afraid you want the universe with the politicians who are in it for the good of the country and have conviction. That's one universe over. this universe is for politicians with no backbone who are only in it for what they can get. The one you wnat is one universe over, second crippling depression on the left and straight on till morning.

 

[Aepervius]

Interesting point. They were awful. How they got presented as some sort of treat is, to me, a triumph of tradition over reality. One might as well eat cardboard.

If they are so awful, maybe it is a typo and they are presented as some sort of threat .

 

[Andy_Ross]

Ukip donor Arron Banks has taken the bold step of challenging Cambridge University classicist Mary Beard on her knowledge of Roman history.
The university don clearly felt she had to intervene on Twitter when Banks started to link the fall of the Roman Empire with troubles affecting the European Union.

Apoarently Beard is a mainstream historian, much like the MSM her ilks days are numbered.
Experts don't have a monopoly on history in the post Brexit world.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ukip-arron-banks-mary-beard-rome_uk_5845c2d5e4b07ac7244927f6

 

[Klimax]

Ukip donor Arron Banks has taken the bold step of challenging Cambridge University classicist Mary Beard on her knowledge of Roman history.
The university don clearly felt she had to intervene on Twitter when Banks started to link the fall of the Roman Empire with troubles affecting the European Union.

Apoarently Beard is a mainstream historian, much like the MSM her ilks days are numbered.
Experts don't have a monopoly on history in the post Brexit world.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ukip-arron-banks-mary-beard-rome_uk_5845c2d5e4b07ac7244927f6

The only thing: Why the hell did had the author to use word "mansplaining"...

 

[CapelDodger]

Apoarently Beard is a mainstream historian, much like the MSM her ilks days are numbered.
Experts don't have a monopoly on history in the post Brexit world.

That's because "they view history through the prism they want to", unlike, say, Arron Brooks or his Empire-era history teachers.

I suppose when you're filthy rich self-reflection seems a waste of time, and probably is.

 

[Andy_Ross]

UK fishing only produces a half of one percent of GDP and employs just 12,000 fishers, the Lords say that industry might be a low priority for the government but it "must not be marginalised in the wider Brexit negotiations".

Many in the fishing community argue that Brexit now offers the industry the chance to regain control over UK waters and become a leading fish-exporting nation, like Norway.

What complicates the picture is the fact the most commercial fish stocks are in waters that are shared between the UK and other EU coastal states. The vast majority of UK fish are exported, mainly to the EU while a significant proportion of the fish that British consumers eat is imported, often from EU states.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38345826

 

[catsmate]

It's the inability of the EU to negotiate anything in a timely manner that means we're better off ignoring them as far as is possible and concentrating our negotiating efforts on other countries who can negotiate meaningfully.

And how is Britain going to do any better? Other than having a far worse negotiating position and having to accept what's on offer...

You're all so eager to ridicule my suggestions, but none of you have put forward your own ideas on how negotiations with the EU should be done.

Untrue.

The first thing is to accept that Britain IS leaving the EU.

Maybe. Maybe not.

The next thing is to acknowledge that the EU is a lumbering bureaucratic nightmare and suggest ways of how to deal with that reality in the most sensible way.

But it's not true, it a Little England fantasy.

No deals with the EU will ever be simple or quick - that's the nature of the EU. How do you suggest we should proceed?

Grovel.

 

[catsmate]

Tell me what you think will happen once we abolish freedom of movement and stop making EU payments. 'Crashing out' with WTO rules is what I'm advocating as the most realistic option.

Large chunks of the services sector say "sod this" and leave the UK, with the losses of hundreds of thousands of jobs and tens of billions of pounds in GDP and tax revenue. Tens of thousands of non-UK workers who keep the country going also depart, leading to chaos in (for example) the NHS. The UK fisheries industry collapses without access to EU markets.
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...

 

[catsmate]

Good, they're bloody awful.

Yeah, strictly an xmas selection tin item. And not a first choice.

 

[catsmate]

What do you have in mind here? I haven't seen that raised before as a Brexit issue.

Somhow, Brexit enhances animal welfare. Well that came out of left field.

I'm curious too. A ban on kosher/halal killing perhaps?

 

[The Don]

UK fishing only produces a half of one percent of GDP and employs just 12,000 fishers, the Lords say that industry might be a low priority for the government but it "must not be marginalised in the wider Brexit negotiations".

Many in the fishing community argue that Brexit now offers the industry the chance to regain control over UK waters and become a leading fish-exporting nation, like Norway.

What complicates the picture is the fact the most commercial fish stocks are in waters that are shared between the UK and other EU coastal states. The vast majority of UK fish are exported, mainly to the EU while a significant proportion of the fish that British consumers eat is imported, often from EU states.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38345826

I understand how there is a "folk memory" of how our brave fishermen kept us fed during the war and I appreciate that, for a handful of towns, it's a major employer but letting fisheries have an influence over Brexit makes as much sense as making major and specific provisions for drag artists, cartoonists, basket weavers or concierge services.

 

[catsmate]

The UK is free to set its owns standards for animal welfare and reportedly the UK's are higher than the EU minimum in many regards. Higher welfare standards do cost money and so in a commiditised food industry this puts UK producers at a commercial disadvantage (unless the customer can be persuaded that local sourcing and/or higher welfare standards are worth paying for - IMO possible if you're selling raw ingredients, less so in the case of ingredients for ready meals).

In a post-Brexit future, the UK could protect its producers by placing higher tariffs on, or even refuse to import food with low welfare standards which could (would ?) then percolate into Europe. Of course that would mean extra costs for UK food producers and UK consumers and expensive certification and monitoring but that's typical of the Brexit "benefits"

Hmm, I've seen this claimed (by George Eustice who's anti-EU) with damn all evidence. Certainly >80% of current UK animal welfare legislation originated in the EU and could easily be disappeared by corporate interests after Brexit. Remember profit maximisation is far more important to the Conservatives than animal welfare, unless there are votes in it. In fact the Conservative government explicitly repudiated additional animal welfare rules over and above the EU minimum.

 

[The Don]

Hmm, I've seen this claimed (by George Eustice who's anti-EU) with damn all evidence. Certainly >80% of current UK animal welfare legislation originated in the EU and could easily be disappeared by corporate interests after Brexit. Remember profit maximisation is far more important to the Conservatives than animal welfare, unless there are votes in it. In fact the Conservative government explicitly repudiated additional animal welfare rules over and above the EU minimum.

yeah but post-Brexit the UK economy will be so strong that profit maximisation won't be as important

 

[Aepervius]

Dropping EU law would make it far worse for animal well fare.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...isastrous-britains-farm-animals-eu-laws-cruel

Their preference for deregulation over animal welfare is also demonstrated by plans to review the foxhunting ban, despite most of the population backing it. Beyond their preference for deregulation, the Tories are the party of business, and complying with animal rights laws costs money. If post-Brexit business lobbyists call for the relaxation of rules that protect farm animals, the Tories may well listen.

The fact is, the UK could set higher wellfare law for ,say, exporting animals. EU law only set the minimum you can go high and above. But the UK does NOT set a higher minimum for exporting its live animals.

I read some people piping up that the EU stop the UK setting higher wellfare law, but to my knowledge this is a incorrect.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Fishermen in Whitby are divided. Some see Brexit as a chance to scrap quotas and a retutn to hauling in everything in the sea. Unfortunately the fish aren't there anymore and there are only a handful of boats still going after Cod. Most boats now bring in Lobster, Crab, Prawn and Langoustine.
Most of these are exported live from a special packing plant in specialist lorries to Europe. Or, off to Grimsby for freezing and then off to Europe. It's the live export that brings the money.
Without a trade deal the live export will stop.
As for actual fish. Most go to Europe as well, in the UK we seem to want Cod or Haddock but not much else.

 

[Craig B]

I'm curious too. A ban on kosher/halal killing perhaps?

I immediately thought of that possibility. It's a common theme of French fascism, to ban halal. This would affect Jews too of course, which is an ambarrassment to that party which has cast off overt antisemitism. A FN representative has apologised to French Jews, stating that they are not the target, and in practice kosher would not be affected. That remains to be seen.

To reinforce the harassment of Muslims, some schools in areas controlled by the extreme Right in France removed vegetarian options from school meal menus; but I think they were instructed to restore them by the ministry of education.

Perhaps we may be enlightened as to whether this is the underlying issue.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Interesting point. They were awful. How they got presented as some sort of treat is, to me, a triumph of tradition over reality. One might as well eat cardboard.

Or some kind of delicious biscuit-like coaster.

 

[catsmate]

Fishermen in Whitby are divided. Some see Brexit as a chance to scrap quotas and a retutn to hauling in everything in the sea. Unfortunately the fish aren't there anymore and there are only a handful of boats still going after Cod. Most boats now bring in Lobster, Crab, Prawn and Langoustine.
Most of these are exported live from a special packing plant in specialist lorries to Europe. Or, off to Grimsby for freezing and then off to Europe. It's the live export that brings the money.
Without a trade deal the live export will stop.
As for actual fish. Most go to Europe as well, in the UK we seem to want Cod or Haddock but not much else.

Yeah they'd lose both ways; the UK will pay more for the fish it eats (caught by EU boats in EU waters) and have hit with tariffs for it's produce.
Plus without regulation they'll over-fish again.

I immediately thought of that possibility. It's a common theme of French fascism, to ban halal. This would affect Jews too of course, which is an ambarrassment to that party which has cast off overt antisemitism. A FN representative has apologised to French Jews, stating that they are not the target, and in practice kosher would not be affected. That remains to be seen.

To reinforce the harassment of Muslims, some schools in areas controlled by the extreme Right in France removed vegetarian options from school meal menus; but I think they were instructed to restore them by the ministry of education.

Perhaps we may be enlightened as to whether this is the underlying issue.

It was my first reaction for that reason; a mix of tradition (in the UK there's a history of links between fascists and animal welfare campaigners¹) and harassment of 'others', especially Muslims.

¹ For those who don't believe me I refer you to the Imperial Fascist League, founded by Arnold Spencer-Leese, a major influence on Mosley, Henry Williamson (WW1 veteran, Aryan mysticist, virulent anti-semite and author of Tarka the Otter', Mary Allen (long-term and influential member Council of the London and Provincial Anti-Vivisection Society), Winifred May, Marquesa de Casa Maury, aka Mrs Dudley Ward (Animal Defence Society), Dr Margaret Vivien (British Union Against Vivisection), Sir George Drummond (also BUAV and fascist) and numerous others. This tradition is still alive today, and exists in other countries (e.g. the German Neo-Nazi slogan "Stop animal experiments - use Turks instead") and Greenwave

 

[Craig B]

... Greenwave

You mean this? That seems odd.