Food for thought Brexiters

[franglais]

Harry Monk:

Franglais:
Let’s try again:
The US Amabssador wants us to accept chicken meat etc according to US standards NOT UK standards. This is part of their stance regarding future trade deals.
Yes, the US producers would like that. The UK producers won’t like it. And many UK consumers won’t like it.

Gosh, yes, wouldn’t it be terrible if we had to buy US-produced chicken with a 2% salmonella content instead of the 15-20% salmonella content eu chicken we can buy now.

Chicken with a 15 to 20% salmonella content on our supermarket shelves?
That’s the reason for all the deaths from food poisoning then.

EDIT> This needs a longer reply, so if no one else does, Ill put summat else up a bit later. Look at Harrys assertion from earlier that EFSA says US chicken is safe too.

Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk

[muckles]

dexxyy:

muckles:

dexxyy:

muckles:
However even though I think we’ve been lead down the Brexit route from a referendum called on a false premises of trying to hold the Conservative party together to having no plan and now wheeling and dealing by MP’s with thier own agendas, the idea we’re better off being in a large organisation like the EU I’m not so sure about, yes of course in theory the large organisation should be able yo call the shots, but do they have our best interests at heart when they do these deals?

I believe a recent ECJ ruling has made this worse, from what I understand it stops individual EU countries blocking trade deals, in theory this means an electorate might vote in a national goverment on a manifesto that they’ll protect some industry or other sector, but that democratically elected goverment can be over ruled by the EU in the name of a free trade deal.

Is the UK really too small to stand alone?
Again yes of course bieng part of a big group has its advantages, but alone the UK still has a larger economy than many other countries who are doing deal with the EU and US,

Well, actually, the UK is too small to push its weight about the way it used to. There’s a brutal reality check heading Britain’s way.
Two World War wins, a former empire and a World Cup win for England doesn’t carry that much clout these days.
Have I accidentally wandered into the Daily Mail comments section?

Who said anything about pushing its weight as it was in the days of Empire? I was just making a comparison to the economic size of the U.K. Compared to other countries who have done trade deals with the EU.

Maybe like most Daily Mail readers you should learn to read the entire thing instead of grabbing a headline to reinforce you already prejudiced views?

It’s quite a leap to assume I read the arse paper that is printed with the DM logo every day.
I was just pointing out that Britain, despite the size of its economy, has not got the global power and influence it once had.
We don’t live in the 50’s any more (despite what the DM readers think) and voluntarily leaving one of the worlds biggest trading blocs is an act of self-harm beyond belief.

Well it would appear that neither of us would like to be considered an advocate of the type of opinions found in the Daily Mail, as I was responding to your reply to my post, where you highlighted one part of what I wrote, and said you thought you’d accidentally wandered into the Daily Mail comments section, ignoring my comments on the fallacy of the basis for having a referendum in the first place and the subsequent Brexit process.

I’m fully aware the Britain is not the World power it was in the 50’s, never said it was, in fact I think one of the many problems we’ve had in this country over the last 30+ years is the belief we are still a major player on the World stage.
However I was comparing the size of the present UK economy and population with many other countries economies, who do seem to do quite well by playing to their strengths and not trying to compete directly with the global superpowers.

dexxyy:
For all the faults (and I’ll admit there are many) of the EU, staying in is better than leaving.

I would like the UK to play a part in European cooperation, but from being a major believer in the EU, I have become more and more disillusioned about it and don’t believe it works for the benefit of the ordinary people of Europe, much of this has been due to talking to people in various parts of Europe and what I’ve seen over the years, much of it has made me both very sad and very angry.

And yes the same could be said about the UK political system.

Major reform of the EU would be great, but at least pre 2016 that seemed impossible, those on the inside were doing ok and therefore had no reason for major reform.

Many things have happened since 2016 that has shaken those in the centre of the EU and many European governments, but I fear many of those who have done the shaking and profess to represent the ordinary people do not have our best interests at heart.

[muckles]

Franglais:
Couple of posts ago I mentioned a link, but didn`t post it. Whoops.
youtube.com/watch?v=UYonSZ8s3_o

I like Stephen Fry, but he is doing his best condescending voice here. It’s obviously a very biased piece picking its stats very carefully to prove the point its making.

However when you read the academic reports on immigration and the benefits, they always come to the conclusion that as a whole group migrant workers do pay more in taxes and benefit the economy, than they take in services. But when you go into detail and split it into groups, those migrant workers on low skilled, low paid jobs do have a slight negative effect on things like pay, it might only be a percentage point, but over time that means those lowest paid jobs don’t keep up with inflation and those in those jobs struggle more.

He also mentioned the areas that voted leave in the highest percentage had fewest immigrants, but Boston had the biggest percentage influx for the areas population of East European workers and some of the other top 10 followed close behind, this was a sudden influx not years of migration. Other areas in the top10 are areas where those in traditionally “white working class” area of Greater London moved to when group of immigrants moved in, so they also feel negatively affected by migration.

Personally I don’t agree with or condone the scapegoating of immigrants for the problems experienced by those people, the culprits are higher up, but these people have been widely ignored by the politicians and labelled as racists when they’ve complained, that made them an easy target for those who offer easy solutions and scapegoats.

[carryfast]

muckles:
when you go into detail and split it into groups, those migrant workers on low skilled, low paid jobs do have a slight negative effect on things like pay, it might only be a percentage point, but over time that means those lowest paid jobs don’t keep up with inflation and those in those jobs struggle more.

Seems to also miss the point that not only does it hold wage levels down there is a very real problem out there of immigrant labour actually competing for jobs with indigenous labour.Often to the point where Brits answering clearly advertised jobs,such as in the private hire cab trade and probably many other types of jobs,are told there are no vacancies when applying for them.

[franglais]

muckles:

Franglais:
Couple of posts ago I mentioned a link, but didn`t post it. Whoops.
youtube.com/watch?v=UYonSZ8s3_o

I like Stephen Fry, but he is doing his best condescending voice here. It’s obviously a very biased piece picking its stats very carefully to prove the point its making.

However when you read the academic reports on immigration and the benefits, they always come to the conclusion that as a whole group migrant workers do pay more in taxes and benefit the economy, than they take in services. But when you go into detail and split it into groups, those migrant workers on low skilled, low paid jobs do have a slight negative effect on things like pay, it might only be a percentage point, but over time that means those lowest paid jobs don’t keep up with inflation and those in those jobs struggle more.

He also mentioned the areas that voted leave in the highest percentage had fewest immigrants, but Boston had the biggest percentage influx for the areas population of East European workers and some of the other top 10 followed close behind, this was a sudden influx not years of migration. Other areas in the top10 are areas where those in traditionally “white working class” area of Greater London moved to when group of immigrants moved in, so they also feel negatively affected by migration.

Personally I don’t agree with or condone the scapegoating of immigrants for the problems experienced by those people, the culprits are higher up, but these people have been widely ignored by the politicians and labelled as racists when they’ve complained, that made them an easy target for those who offer easy solutions and scapegoats.

I do agree that the tone of the piece is all wrong. As you say condescending in the extreme. But it is largely factual, not just an unsubstantiated rant.

Biased? Well, it was never setting out to be a balanced appraisal of the situation, but is a reply the nonsense put out by the Leave Campaign etc. I don`t think it tells any lies, unlike some other sources, so viewed as one of many available viewpoints is quite acceptable, IMHO.

Immigration, as you and CarryFast say, is a very complex subject, and it has been treated in one way in this piece. Without writing volumes it can`t be treated in a full and balanced way, and even then I doubt any sound conclusions would be reached. Other “newspapers” also treat immigration in a limited way, and this is some sort of antidote to that, I would suggest.

[franglais]

The argument about food standards and chlorine washes is being twisted around in all sorts of ways.
Salmonella is present in the guts of many animals including chickens. So long as it stays there it isnt a problem. When faecal matter gets onto meat it is a problem. The EU attitude is to keep it away at all stages of meat production, whereas the US is less stringent at earlier stages, but cleans the carcasses at the end of the slaughter process. The problem isnt the safety of chlorine washes, thats a straw man being set up, its the reason for needing those washes. Chlorine used to clean foods and then rinsed off ain`t the problem.

US meat producers use much higher stocking densities, and slacker hygiene standards than we currently use. They need more use of antibiotics because of higher stock density. Because of that their costs are lower. If we import US or other meats, produced to their standards, our own meat producers will either need to drop the standards they currently use, or go out of business.

If there is a public accepted need for high intensity farming, so be it. If we decide its necessary to produce meat with lower welfare standards, lets debate it and change the rules.
But we don`t have that here. We have Woody Johnson telling us we need to accept US standards for food in order to get a trade deal. How those who are against EU rules, Which We Debated And Voted For, can roll over and accept this type of diktat is at the least ironic!

Anyway in slightly more detail, chlorine washes can hide rather than kill salmonella.
infectioncontroltoday.com/f … detectable
Or as reported in the press:
theguardian.com/world/2018/ … a-listeria

The Ambassadors statement that US had higher food safety records doesnt stand up.
“The U.S. and U.K. governments’ own figures show that food poisoning rates in the U.S. are anything up to 10 times higher than in the U.K., and that 380 people died of Salmonella food poisoning there, compared to none over the same period in the U.K.,” Dalmeny said."
foodsafetynews.com/2019/03/ … -targeted/

[carryfast]

Franglais:
The argument about food standards and chlorine washes is being twisted around in all sorts of ways.
Salmonella is present in the guts of many animals including chickens. So long as it stays there it isnt a problem. When faecal matter gets onto meat it is a problem. The EU attitude is to keep it away at all stages of meat production, whereas the US is less stringent at earlier stages, but cleans the carcasses at the end of the slaughter process. The problem isnt the safety of chlorine washes, thats a straw man being set up, its the reason for needing those washes. Chlorine used to clean foods and then rinsed off ain`t the problem.

US meat producers use much higher stocking densities, and slacker hygiene standards than we currently use. They need more use of antibiotics because of higher stock density. Because of that their costs are lower. If we import US or other meats, produced to their standards, our own meat producers will either need to drop the standards they currently use, or go out of business.

We have Woody Johnson telling us we need to accept US standards for food in order to get a trade deal. How those who are against EU rules, Which We Debated And Voted For, can roll over and accept this type of diktat is at the least ironic!

You’re making a typical remainer bs 2 + 2 = 5 argument and as usual telling Leave voters what we voted for.On that note what’s the problem in us being able to tell the US big business agenda to do one just like the EU.The difference being that in the case of US trade we have the sovereignty to be able to do it unlike the EU single market.In which case which part of UK standards not EU or US standards apply here don’t you understand and if that means us having to play hard ball with the US ambassador then so be it.In which case you haven’t answered the question as to why no reply stating that we’ll happily accept US agricultural products under ‘our’ existing standards just as we do now ‘but’ now without any quotas or tariffs being applied.

While the same issues obviously don’t apply to US car/truck manufacturing standards in which case DOT compliance will do just fine.‘Then’ see what he says after all that bearing in mind that,unlike the stupid Krauts,even American Federalists aren’t stupid enough to want to cut off their nose to spite their face as part of a 4th Reich expansionist agenda.

But you’re also against that too.

It’s obvious that remainers are just using bs non issues regarding UK/US trade as an excuse to de rail Brexit and to look after German interests.

[muckles]

Franglais:

muckles:

Franglais:
Couple of posts ago I mentioned a link, but didn`t post it. Whoops.
youtube.com/watch?v=UYonSZ8s3_o

I like Stephen Fry, but he is doing his best condescending voice here. It’s obviously a very biased piece picking its stats very carefully to prove the point its making.

However when you read the academic reports on immigration and the benefits, they always come to the conclusion that as a whole group migrant workers do pay more in taxes and benefit the economy, than they take in services. But when you go into detail and split it into groups, those migrant workers on low skilled, low paid jobs do have a slight negative effect on things like pay, it might only be a percentage point, but over time that means those lowest paid jobs don’t keep up with inflation and those in those jobs struggle more.

He also mentioned the areas that voted leave in the highest percentage had fewest immigrants, but Boston had the biggest percentage influx for the areas population of East European workers and some of the other top 10 followed close behind, this was a sudden influx not years of migration. Other areas in the top10 are areas where those in traditionally “white working class” area of Greater London moved to when group of immigrants moved in, so they also feel negatively affected by migration.

Personally I don’t agree with or condone the scapegoating of immigrants for the problems experienced by those people, the culprits are higher up, but these people have been widely ignored by the politicians and labelled as racists when they’ve complained, that made them an easy target for those who offer easy solutions and scapegoats.

I do agree that the tone of the piece is all wrong. As you say condescending in the extreme. But it is largely factual, not just an unsubstantiated rant.

Biased? Well, it was never setting out to be a balanced appraisal of the situation, but is a reply the nonsense put out by the Leave Campaign etc. I don`t think it tells any lies, unlike some other sources, so viewed as one of many available viewpoints is quite acceptable, IMHO.

Immigration, as you and CarryFast say, is a very complex subject, and it has been treated in one way in this piece. Without writing volumes it can`t be treated in a full and balanced way, and even then I doubt any sound conclusions would be reached. Other “newspapers” also treat immigration in a limited way, and this is some sort of antidote to that, I would suggest.

As a reply to the Leave campaign and media groups with similar views is fair enough, but like those campaigns they cherry pick their facts, which need to be debunked and put into context, the problem is the argument is very polarised, so each side will only listen to the facts that fit their already hardened opinion.
Those living comfortably with good jobs and Romanian cleaner, Bulgarian nanny, Polish Plumber and have their Starbucks served by a Nigerian on their commute to work, will obviously feel that the influx of migrant workers has been beneficial and these are the people who have been listened to by the politicians and journalists, maybe because they can relate to their lives and their in the areas they also live.
Those people trying to pay rent on the money they get on a zero hours low paid job, find housing in the area they have probably grown up in, where all their relatives live and their entire social network live, increasingly occupied by outsiders. Its easy for them to go from that to migrants are causing all our problems.
They never see a mainstream politician to express their views and probably can’t express it in the language that those politicians would understand; they make easy pickings for others.
Some years ago the BNP took hold of various councils, obviously the people who voted them in were labelled as racists, some years later the BNP were routed by Labour, mostly voted in by the same people branded as racists. So what changed, well the local Labour party actually went onto the streets and talked to the people they’re supposed to represent instead of sending edicts from upon high on how they should think and believe.
My mums Local MP is an anomaly in the area, a Lib Dem, in a staunchly Conservative, vote Leave area. He was re-elected because he actually works with for the people, I know several people he has help directly, unlike the Conservative candidate who was based in London and was being parachuted in to take what they believed would be an easy win in a very marginal seat.

[franglais]

Carryfast:
On that note what’s the problem in us being able to tell the US big business agenda to do one just like the EU.

Carryfast:
In which case you haven’t answered the question as to why no reply stating that we’ll happily accept US agricultural products under ‘our’ existing standards just as we do now ‘but’ now without any quotas or tariffs being applied.

“Woody Johnson, who last week accused the EU of being a “museum of agriculture”, said Donald Trump would make sure any trade deal between the UK and US “has to include farming and farm products”.
“The president has made it pretty clear he would love to have a robust trade deal with the UK. But any trade deal that we do with the UK will have to include agriculture. Agriculture is extremely important to the president,” he told the BBC’s Radio 4 Today programme.”
theguardian.com/politics/20 … -standards

If we want to sell in the US in any meaningful way, we will have to accept their goods, including their foods, on their terms. Looks pretty clear to me.

[franglais]

muckles:
As a reply to the Leave campaign and media groups with similar views is fair enough, but like those campaigns they cherry pick their facts, which need to be debunked and put into context, the problem is the argument is very polarised, so each side will only listen to the facts that fit their already hardened opinion.
Those living comfortably with good jobs and Romanian cleaner, Bulgarian nanny, Polish Plumber and have their Starbucks served by a Nigerian on their commute to work, will obviously feel that the influx of migrant workers has been beneficial and these are the people who have been listened to by the politicians and journalists, maybe because they can relate to their lives and their in the areas they also live.
Those people trying to pay rent on the money they get on a zero hours low paid job, find housing in the area they have probably grown up in, where all their relatives live and their entire social network live, increasingly occupied by outsiders. Its easy for them to go from that to migrants are causing all our problems.
They never see a mainstream politician to express their views and probably can’t express it in the language that those politicians would understand; they make easy pickings for others.
Some years ago the BNP took hold of various councils, obviously the people who voted them in were labelled as racists, some years later the BNP were routed by Labour, mostly voted in by the same people branded as racists. So what changed, well the local Labour party actually went onto the streets and talked to the people they’re supposed to represent instead of sending edicts from upon high on how they should think and believe.
My mums Local MP is an anomaly in the area, a Lib Dem, in a staunchly Conservative, vote Leave area. He was re-elected because he actually works with for the people, I know several people he has help directly, unlike the Conservative candidate who was based in London and was being parachuted in to take what they believed would be an easy win in a very marginal seat.

I can`t see much there to argue with.

The piece did only choose some facts rather than others, it`s true.
I might argue that choosing facts is different to speaking of a non existent 350million quid or Turkey being about to join the EU etc. Choosing facts IS different to outright lies.

Politics and politicians arent serving the majority of us very well, Ill agree. In/Out, Left/Right, Up/Down, dont matter much really, the system isnt working.

[muckles]

Franglais:
If there is a public accepted need for high intensity farming, so be it. If we decide its necessary to produce meat with lower welfare standards, lets debate it and change the rules.
But we don`t have that here. We have Woody Johnson telling us we need to accept US standards for food in order to get a trade deal. How those who are against EU rules, Which We Debated And Voted For, can roll over and accept this type of diktat is at the least ironic!
/

The thing is all this talk about Chlorinated Chicken and Cattle fed on antibiotics was also part of the Anti TTIP campaign, now depending on whom you believe, it was either stopped by the Election of President Trump or people power, but it most definitely wasn’t stopped because those in controls of EU policy found US food standards a problem.

TTIP was also believed to present a threat the NHS, although these was denied and we were told that there were safeguards, Trades Unions like Unite and campaign groups felt that the wordings were ambiguous and could be exploited by companies using legal loopholes and challenge the agreements in special courts set up to allow companies to challenge governments if they believe their policies deny them profits or access to markets. This means if a government is elected by the people with the manifesto promise of keeping public services, they could find they, the democratically elected representatives of the people, can’t do it because of laws protecting global companies.

Sorry gone on a bit of a ramble, but basically some of the things proposed in a US trade deal are worrying, so whether it’s TTIP or a UK/US trade deal we must be ready to protect what we have and protest and fight to stop them.

[carryfast]

Franglais:

Carryfast:
On that note what’s the problem in us being able to tell the US big business agenda to do one just like the EU.

Carryfast:
In which case you haven’t answered the question as to why no reply stating that we’ll happily accept US agricultural products under ‘our’ existing standards just as we do now ‘but’ now without any quotas or tariffs being applied.

“Woody Johnson, who last week accused the EU of being a “museum of agriculture”, said Donald Trump would make sure any trade deal between the UK and US “has to include farming and farm products”.
“The president has made it pretty clear he would love to have a robust trade deal with the UK. But any trade deal that we do with the UK will have to include agriculture. Agriculture is extremely important to the president,” he told the BBC’s Radio 4 Today programme.”
theguardian.com/politics/20 … -standards

If we want to sell in the US in any meaningful way, we will have to accept their goods, including their foods, on their terms. Looks pretty clear to me.

Doesn’t say anything there about complying with UK standards actually being a line in the sand or a deal breaker when we offer them tariff/quota free agricultural trade.Bearing in mind that agricultural exports even from upstate NY or Washington State have to comply with Californian regulations within the US Federation let alone a sovereign foreign country.Let alone when the sweetener of DOT compliance being acceptable for tariff and quota free vehicle trade and all trade restrictions removed from other manufacturing exports is added to the deal.Are you seriously suggesting that the US manufacturing industry won’t break ranks with the farmers in that case.Let alone the farmers being stupid enough to cut off their noses to spite their face when they are already complying with UK standards regarding food exports to UK from meat to fruit.

Still awaiting an answer to my question as to why no clear reply from May to Trump with a deal along those lines.I won’t hold my breath waiting.No surprise EU Federalists won’t want to sign us up to anything which goes against the interests of Fuhrer Merkel which is your real issue.

[franglais]

Not “off on a ramble” really Muckles! These are clearly all interrelated issues.
We have Michael Gove promising no change in animal welfare standards, and Liam Fox, doing everything possible to get a deal with the US. Personally I wouldn`t trust either of those two to deliver a bottle of (non-GM) milk, let alone deliver on a promise!

[carryfast]

muckles:
Sorry gone on a bit of a ramble, but basically some of the things proposed in a US trade deal are worrying, so whether it’s TTIP or a UK/US trade deal we must be ready to protect what we have and protest and fight to stop them.

The difference being that as an independent sovereign country we can hold our MP’s to account in stopping the globalist corporate bandwagon in the form of the Hoey,as opposed to Blairite,Labour vote.However we obviously can’t if the EU politburo and QMV vote say yes to it.It’s clear that the Federalists like Franglais are just arguing about who is in charge of us in the form of Merkel’s 4th Reich v Trump’s Federal pile.As opposed to those of us who just want an independent sovereign UK run on pre 1973 lines.The answer from the Federalists predictably being that we can only have the choice of which Federal mire that we have to bow down to because they can’t/won’t think in terms of us being a sovereign country.

[muckles]

Franglais:
Not “off on a ramble” really Muckles! These are clearly all interrelated issues.
We have Michael Gove promising no change in animal welfare standards, and Liam Fox, doing everything possible to get a deal with the US. Personally I wouldn`t trust either of those two to deliver a bottle of (non-GM) milk, let alone deliver on a promise!

Totally agree, if they shock my hand I’d check they hadn’t nicked my wallet with the other one. I have very little faith they’ll try and give us a trade deal that good for the likes of you and me, but no doubt get them a lucrative job after they leave parliament.

The glimmer of hope I have is Parliament is no longer a 2 party state, where they are basically promoting the same policies with a slight variation and we no longer have one party who can push stuff through due to a majority, but we mustn’t let those free marketers who have pushed for Brexit to gain the upper hand, quite frankly I think it would be some sort of poetic justice if we ended up with the exact opposite of the de-regulated market these people want, most likely at our expense.

[muckles]

Carryfast:

muckles:
Sorry gone on a bit of a ramble, but basically some of the things proposed in a US trade deal are worrying, so whether it’s TTIP or a UK/US trade deal we must be ready to protect what we have and protest and fight to stop them.

The difference being that as an independent sovereign country we can hold our MP’s to account in stopping the globalist corporate bandwagon in the form of the Hoey,as opposed to Blairite,Labour vote.However we obviously can’t if the EU politburo and QMV vote say yes to it.It’s clear that the Federalists like Franglais are just arguing about who is in charge of us in the form of Merkel’s 4th Reich v Trump’s Federal pile.As opposed to those of us who just want an independent sovereign UK run on pre 1973 lines.The answer from the Federalists predictably being that we can only have the choice of which Federal mire that we have to bow down to because they can’t/won’t think in terms of us being a sovereign country.

Although you might have similar opinions to mayself and even Franglais about globaliation and who it really benefits, the more you rant on about 4th Reich’s, the more you sound like a fruit loop.

[dexxyy]

Well it would appear that neither of us would like to be considered an advocate of the type of opinions found in the Daily Mail, as I was responding to your reply to my post, where you highlighted one part of what I wrote, and said you thought you’d accidentally wandered into the Daily Mail comments section, ignoring my comments on the fallacy of the basis for having a referendum in the first place and the subsequent Brexit process.

I’m fully aware the Britain is not the World power it was in the 50’s, never said it was, in fact I think one of the many problems we’ve had in this country over the last 30+ years is the belief we are still a major player on the World stage.
However I was comparing the size of the present UK economy and population with many other countries economies, who do seem to do quite well by playing to their strengths and not trying to compete directly with the global superpowers.

dexxyy:
For all the faults (and I’ll admit there are many) of the EU, staying in is better than leaving.

I would like the UK to play a part in European cooperation, but from being a major believer in the EU, I have become more and more disillusioned about it and don’t believe it works for the benefit of the ordinary people of Europe, much of this has been due to talking to people in various parts of Europe and what I’ve seen over the years, much of it has made me both very sad and very angry.

And yes the same could be said about the UK political system.

Major reform of the EU would be great, but at least pre 2016 that seemed impossible, those on the inside were doing ok and therefore had no reason for major reform.

Many things have happened since 2016 that has shaken those in the centre of the EU and many European governments, but I fear many of those who have done the shaking and profess to represent the ordinary people do not have our best interests at heart.
[/quote]
Hi Muckles, Dexxyy here. Christ what a mess I’ve made of this post. I have not got the hang of this forum at all when it comes to quoting. Not sure how to correct it, so, the reply starts here.

Ok, I was a bit clumsy in my original reply, no offence intended, honest.
I’m personally sick to the back teeth of the ‘We’re British and we can take on the world’ attitude being pedalled by the trashiest of the tabloids.They seem very blinkered in their outlook. Their whole argument seems to be based on emotion and nostalgia. (and yes, I know that’s not what you were saying). I still think we’re a major player out there, we exert a lot of influence, we command a lot of respect etc. But we are in serious danger of shooting ourselves in the foot here.
Short term, I can’t see any major benefits of leaving, though to be fair, even Brexiteers admit it won’t be plain sailing from day one.

My major concern however, is how the whole thing is being handled. It is an utter shambles. But then again how could it ever have been different? You made the point yourself, this referendum was called to solve internal problems within the Tory party. If there was some kind of national emergency or crisis three years ago that warranted us leaving the EU it certainly passed me by.

You also make a good point about the priorities of the EU, ie, do the interests of the EU as a whole trump national interests? Well, in a club of 28 sovereign states that’s going to be inevitable from time to time. I’m not particularly happy with that either, but, when you join a club, you accept the club rules.

You say, and I quote . . .
‘Many things have happened since 2016 that has shaken those in the centre of the EU and many European governments, but I fear many of those who have done the shaking and profess to represent the ordinary people do not have our best interests at heart’.
Who are you referring to here? If it’s UKIP and the ERG you’re spot on.

Brexit is going to happen, or maybe not, or maybe some time later than planned, and it’s all going to go smoothly, or not, and there’ll be shortages, and unpicked crops, or massive surpluses and full employment, or mass unemployment, or maybe it’ll be the long overdue utopia we’ve all been working towards, (that would be nice), or maybe it’ll be postponed because of the ■■■■■■■ weather and then dusted down and presented again.

After 29th March I’m not expecting a zombie apocalypse, but with May, Gove, Grayling etc at the wheel, don’t rule it out.

[carryfast]

muckles:

Carryfast:
The difference being that as an independent sovereign country we can hold our MP’s to account in stopping the globalist corporate bandwagon in the form of the Hoey,as opposed to Blairite,Labour vote.However we obviously can’t if the EU politburo and QMV vote say yes to it.It’s clear that the Federalists like Franglais are just arguing about who is in charge of us in the form of Merkel’s 4th Reich v Trump’s Federal pile.As opposed to those of us who just want an independent sovereign UK run on pre 1973 lines.The answer from the Federalists predictably being that we can only have the choice of which Federal mire that we have to bow down to because they can’t/won’t think in terms of us being a sovereign country.

Although you might have similar opinions to mayself and even Franglais about globaliation and who it really benefits, the more you rant on about 4th Reich’s, the more you sound like a fruit loop.

Let’s get this right.A pan European Federal superstate,run first and foremost by the Germans for the Germans,according to what the German Federation wants, isn’t supposedly just the logical progression of the Deutscher Bund better known as the second Reich.As for fruit loops you mean like the nutter and his followers who tried and failed to set up the pan European 3rd Reich.Like the second Reich on the basis that a Germany or a Europe,made up of independent sovereign nation states was no longer acceptable or viable.

[muckles]

dexxyy:

muckles:
Well it would appear that neither of us would like to be considered an advocate of the type of opinions found in the Daily Mail, as I was responding to your reply to my post, where you highlighted one part of what I wrote, and said you thought you’d accidentally wandered into the Daily Mail comments section, ignoring my comments on the fallacy of the basis for having a referendum in the first place and the subsequent Brexit process.

I’m fully aware the Britain is not the World power it was in the 50’s, never said it was, in fact I think one of the many problems we’ve had in this country over the last 30+ years is the belief we are still a major player on the World stage.
However I was comparing the size of the present UK economy and population with many other countries economies, who do seem to do quite well by playing to their strengths and not trying to compete directly with the global superpowers.

dexxyy:
For all the faults (and I’ll admit there are many) of the EU, staying in is better than leaving.

I would like the UK to play a part in European cooperation, but from being a major believer in the EU, I have become more and more disillusioned about it and don’t believe it works for the benefit of the ordinary people of Europe, much of this has been due to talking to people in various parts of Europe and what I’ve seen over the years, much of it has made me both very sad and very angry.

And yes the same could be said about the UK political system.

Major reform of the EU would be great, but at least pre 2016 that seemed impossible, those on the inside were doing ok and therefore had no reason for major reform.

Many things have happened since 2016 that has shaken those in the centre of the EU and many European governments, but I fear many of those who have done the shaking and profess to represent the ordinary people do not have our best interests at heart.

Hi Muckles, Dexxyy here. Christ what a mess I’ve made of this post. I have not got the hang of this forum at all when it comes to quoting. Not sure how to correct it, so, the reply starts here.

Ok, I was a bit clumsy in my original reply, no offence intended, honest.
I’m personally sick to the back teeth of the ‘We’re British and we can take on the world’ attitude being pedalled by the trashiest of the tabloids.They seem very blinkered in their outlook. Their whole argument seems to be based on emotion and nostalgia. (and yes, I know that’s not what you were saying). I still think we’re a major player out there, we exert a lot of influence, we command a lot of respect etc. But we are in serious danger of shooting ourselves in the foot here.
Short term, I can’t see any major benefits of leaving, though to be fair, even Brexiteers admit it won’t be plain sailing from day one.

My major concern however, is how the whole thing is being handled. It is an utter shambles. But then again how could it ever have been different? You made the point yourself, this referendum was called to solve internal problems within the Tory party. If there was some kind of national emergency or crisis three years ago that warranted us leaving the EU it certainly passed me by.

You also make a good point about the priorities of the EU, ie, do the interests of the EU as a whole trump national interests? Well, in a club of 28 sovereign states that’s going to be inevitable from time to time. I’m not particularly happy with that either, but, when you join a club, you accept the club rules.

You say, and I quote . . .
‘Many things have happened since 2016 that has shaken those in the centre of the EU and many European governments, but I fear many of those who have done the shaking and profess to represent the ordinary people do not have our best interests at heart’.
Who are you referring to here? If it’s UKIP and the ERG you’re spot on.

Brexit is going to happen, or maybe not, or maybe some time later than planned, and it’s all going to go smoothly, or not, and there’ll be shortages, and unpicked crops, or massive surpluses and full employment, or mass unemployment, or maybe it’ll be the long overdue utopia we’ve all been working towards, (that would be nice), or maybe it’ll be postponed because of the [zb] weather and then dusted down and presented again.

After 29th March I’m not expecting a zombie apocalypse, but with May, Gove, Grayling etc at the wheel, don’t rule it out.

I’m on my phone so its difficult to separate the keys points in your post.

As with my debates with Franglais, somebody who I have a great deal of respect for despite our slightly differing views, having read your post I doubt there is much difference in our points of view.

Firstly no offence taken, I thought it was just a bit of robust dialogue and responded in a similar way.
I do know what you mean about the over jingoistic excesses of the tabloids, it does wear a bit thin, I’m proud to be a citizen of this country, I also feel very at home in many parts of Europe, I like the culture and attitudes to life and work and feel we could learn much from them instead of resorting to the old stereotypes beloved of the tabloid press.

I didn’t necessarily mean UKIP, although surely for all his common man in the pub routine, Farage is anything but, I was more thinking along the lines of some of the groups in Europe

Leaving the EU probably could be done in an organised planned way, with a common sense of direction, if the original referendum was actually about giving people a choice and not to silence a vocal minority in the governing political party, the fact the plan backfired so massively, shows how out of touch the ruling elite were with much of country and how arrogant they were not to actually have a viable exit plan and now after nearly 3 years of infighting, backstabbing, and power games were looking at an exit with no plan, no consensus and probably no hope.

[dexxyy]

muckles:
I’m on my phone so its difficult to separate the keys points in your post.

As with my debates with Franglais, somebody who I have a great deal of respect for despite our slightly differing views, having read your post I doubt there is much difference in our points of view.

Firstly no offence taken, I thought it was just a bit of robust dialogue and responded in a similar way.
I do know what you mean about the over jingoistic excesses of the tabloids, it does wear a bit thin, I’m proud to be a citizen of this country, I also feel very at home in many parts of Europe, I like the culture and attitudes to life and work and feel we could learn much from them instead of resorting to the old stereotypes beloved of the tabloid press.

I didn’t necessarily mean UKIP, although surely for all his common man in the pub routine, Farage is anything but, I was more thinking along the lines of some of the groups in Europe

Leaving the EU probably could be done in an organised planned way, with a common sense of direction, if the original referendum was actually about giving people a choice and not to silence a vocal minority in the governing political party, the fact the plan backfired so massively, shows how out of touch the ruling elite were with much of country and how arrogant they were not to actually have a viable exit plan and now after nearly 3 years of infighting, backstabbing, and power games were looking at an exit with no plan, no consensus and probably no hope.

There’s always hope. There’s certainly no faith in the clowns who are handling it, but you can’t give up on hope.
Then again, there’s a phrase ‘It’s the hope that kills you’.
Exciting times ahead.