• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Brexit: Now What? The Perfect 10.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Only in theory.
Click to expand...
Right..... :rolleyes:
The ECHR (not actually part of the EU but part of the Brexiteer demonised "Europe") has forced Britain to take protect vulnerable prisoners, regulate the monitoring of employees' communications, protect the anonymity of journalists' sources, equalise the bring the age of consent and observe safeguards in evictions, to name but a few decisions. Then there were the judgements on press freedom, state surveillance, deaths in police custody, admission of dubious evidence, LGBT rights, corporal punishment in schools,voting rights for prisoners, protection of children.....

Decisions that the Brexiteers are so enthusiastic about rolling back.
:rolleyes:
 
Does anyone remember Boris telling businesses in Northern Ireland that they would never need to fill in customs forms and they should ring him up if anyone asks them to?


He just lied to their faces.
 
Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP tweeted

@grantshapps
Welcome news for UK driversm We've now secured agreement with all 27 EU Member States to recognise UK licences WITHOUT the need for an International Drivers Permit. From tomorrow, UK drivers can drive in the EU without an IDP (once Covid restrictions lifted).
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Does anyone remember Boris telling businesses in Northern Ireland that they would never need to fill in customs forms and they should ring him up if anyone asks them to?


He just lied to their faces.
Click to expand...
Yes. But then you'd have to be an utter moron to believe anything BuBu spews out.
 
Arcade22 said:
I'd question why you have concerns
Click to expand...
The EU is a political work in progress, whose stated objective, in it's treaties, is ever closer union.
It is not a static unchanging free trade organisation.

The Euro began with the exchange rate mechanism.
The exchange rate mechanism did not stop there.

You do not create a military staff in an organisation of this kind unless you have military objectives.

Remainers at the EU referendum said there would never be an EU army.

Remainers lied.

And thankfully lost.
 
catsmate said:
:rolleyes: Even the Brexit proponents have admitted Brexit will be hugely damaging to Britain, time to accept reality and stop the lie spewing.
Click to expand...

There is an FTA.
Time to stop hysterically ranting.

catsmate said:
Have you listened to the Brexit exponents? The lies they told?
Click to expand...

I listened to Lord Owen, who decades ago broke from Labour because of Michael Foot's policy to unilaterally leave the EEC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWVO2d9Spks

He now supports departure from the EU.

I also watched the Paxman in Brussels documentary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD4sSFq_nWg

Didn't pay attention to Boris.
Didn't pay attention to Gove.
Did pay attention to David (liar) Cameron.
Did pay attention to George Osborne too, didn't trust him either.

Both sides campaigned badly, but your side's campaign was dreadful.
 
Last edited:
Airfix said:
You do not create a military staff in an organisation of this kind unless you have military objectives.

Remainers at the EU referendum said there would never be an EU army.

Remainers lied.

And thankfully lost.
Click to expand...

Pooling resources and having a common command structure is not an "EU Army"

Just as NATO is not an "Army"
 
It's more than pooling.
There's the Eurocorps and the Battlegroups.
Neither of which are required by a free trade organisation.
 
Airfix said:
It's more than pooling.
There's the Eurocorps and the Battlegroups.
Neither of which are required by a free trade organisation.
Click to expand...

Which are made from the armies of the nation states, they aren't some extra military force under command of the EU.

Just like NATO doesn't have its own 'battlegroups' or forces of any kind.
 
Last edited:
Airfix said:
You do not create a military staff in an organisation of this kind unless you have military objectives.
Click to expand...

In reality the "military objectives" here amount to little more than cultural exchange of no real military importance or significance whatsoever. EU members have participated in various military conflicts together recently and no one ever thought to actually use one of these "EU Battle-groups" for anything other than non-combat training exercises or war-games.

They are not even capable of being deployed to fight insurgents in third-world countries or peacekeeping missions, which is probably the most realistic use you could have of them.

Remainers at the EU referendum said there would never be an EU army.

Remainers lied.
Click to expand...

Except none of this comes even close to being a "EU Army" anymore than Europol is like a police force.
 
My understanding is that one of the changes is that British companies exporting to Europe now have to submit a lot more paperwork than when Britain was part of the EU, and that this has real costs for companies, because it takes time to fill out all of this paperwork and you have to pay some employee to do it. Maybe that means more jobs, but they are jobs that produce nothing of real value, unless you consider bureaucratic paperwork to have value.

In other news:

For Japan's automakers, Brexit deal may be too little, too late (The Japan Times)

The auto industry dodged disaster when the U.K. and European Union sealed a post-Brexit trade accord, but not before carmakers announced factory closures and called off plans to make several new vehicles in the country.

More damage may still be done even with last week’s deal. Automakers including Nissan Motor Co. might struggle to qualify some U.K.-assembled models for tariff-free export to the EU as they evaluate whether they source enough of their components locally. Costs associated with having to switch suppliers and the burdens of customs declarations, certifications and audits could still leave car companies convinced they’re better off investing elsewhere.

“This is still a thin deal with major implications and costs for automotive,” said David Bailey, a business economics professor at Birmingham Business School in England. “Much will depend on the degree of flexibility allowed and the degree of phasing in.”

The stakes for the U.K. economy are massive. The country’s auto industry employs more than 860,000 people, over a fifth of whom are on staff at vehicle and parts factories. The sector sent £42.4 billion ($57 billion) worth of cars and components overseas last year, 13% of the nation’s total exports. The Brexit deal eliminates the risk of widespread exodus but still could fall short for carmakers with too little leeway to take on more expenses.
Click to expand...

I guess the one good thing you can say about this deal is that it still beats no deal at all.
 
Vixen said:
Five hectares equates to 12.56 acres - quite large. An acre was considered to be the standard size for a field in the days of yore. What is salient is how fertile is that land, what is grown there and what is the yield.
Click to expand...

Salient to what? Whether to pay subsidy? I think you need to ask what you want to change/maintain through the use of subsidy.

The figures I gave for income were based on the most common grain grown in the UK, where the UK is among the best at growing it due to climate/soil etc, with a high end yield (and a generous price).

I’m also not sure that the definition of an acre from a time when agriculture was barely above subsistence level is useful in helping to determine if subsidy should be paid today. An area smaller than a football pitch doesn’t feel like a normal field to someone who grew up in the East of England!
 
Vixen said:
That is not really a news item, it is an 'Opinion' piece.

Show me which of the press reported the following news which shows the public are not happy with the deal, which the mainstream media are 'hailing' as 'freedom to make our own laws'.
Click to expand...

Those charts tell us is that most people realize that even a bad deal is better than no deal.

Vixen said:
The other resident Brexiteer claimed we'd have more sustainable fishing as a result of the shortfall in fishing yields were the EU boats not allowed to fish (which 'hail!' to Boris' deal, they still can).

Suddenly the Brexiteers have gone all green.
Click to expand...

The opposite is almost certainly true as it sets the stage for a "tragedy of the commons" scenario. Fish don't know where the border is so they are in effect still a shared resource. When you have 2 groups harvesting a shared resource there is an incentive for both sides to get as much as possible even if it means the resource is degraded in the future.

Vixen said:
Vixen said:
Five hectares equates to 12.56 acres - quite large. An acre was considered to be the standard size for a field in the days of yore. What is salient is how fertile is that land, what is grown there and what is the yield.
Click to expand...

12 acres isn't nearly big enough for a modern farm. You can't justify using machinery on something that small. Even small (and therefor inefficient) farm equipment would finish any task in a few hours and sit idle the rest of the year.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
12 acres isn't nearly big enough for a modern farm. You can't justify using machinery on something that small. Even small (and therefor inefficient) farm equipment would finish any task in a few hours and sit idle the rest of the year.
Click to expand...

Google reveals that in NE England the average is 147 hectares. 12 acres is trivial, little more than a smallholding.
 
Airfix said:
In Romania there's been a mass felling of trees in order to qualify for CAP subsidies. If we're going to criticise Brazil and it's destruction of rainforests, we need to criticise the EU and the destruction of forests that the CAP has caused.
.
Click to expand...

I promised myself I wasn't going to get involve in pointless arguments on here this year but hey ho.... just to let facts get in the way.

The area of rainforest felled in a single year in Brazil (78m acres) is larger than the entire area of Romania (58.9m acres)

Is this another one of those intelligent arguments for leaving the EU? They seem about as prevalent as those 'sophisticated theologians' i keep hearing about.

As far as I can see the TOTAL area deforested in Romania in 17 years is about 700,000 acres which is about 3.5 DAYS of Amazonian deforestation.

And I can find no evidence that a significant amount of this is due to the CAP but rather just down to good old fashioned logging and timber production.

Oh and guess who is taking legal action to prevent the Romanians continuing with these practices? Go on... guess.... no it's not Nigel Farage... try again....

https://www.saveparadiseforests.eu/...nounced,protect Europe's last natural forests.

Ah well at least I can stay away from the Trans thread:rolleyes:
 
Saw someone buying garlic in the local shop. I will report them of course.

Plus, this bottle of Champagne I still have. Do I throw it out or drink it and hand myself in?
 
Conservatives tweeted
@Conservatives
We have taken back control of our laws and banned pulse fishing in British waters to help to safeguard our marine environment.
 
EU laws already allowed member states to ban 'Pulse Fishing' Belgium and France banned it last year.
A complete EU wide ban comes in to effect in June this year.

Only 2 British trawlers still used it last yea.

Why wasn't it a good idea when we were members?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom