BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

pblakeney

Worked for sea bass, didn’t it?

pinkbikini

david37 said:

pinkbikini said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Presumably the US is somewhere PB and Mrs PB would otherwise be inclined to visit whereas the likes of North Korea, Myanmar, Belarus or even Russia / China aren't likely holiday destinations?

Or maybe saying that you won't holiday in (say) Turkey because Erdoğan is an authoritarian git doesn't score quite as many right on brownie points?

I just expected more of a country that is ‘leader of the free world’. Trumpet came storming out of the gates with his (in my view) racist agenda - the travel ban was just about the first policy he enacted. It seemed so clear which direction he was heading.

I chose not to use my discretionary holiday spending in the US because of this.

I’m as guilty of hypocrisy as the next person. Still went to visit family in India (although that’s a little less discretionary) and I think Modi employs similar tactics in stoking racial division.

Trying to take a principled stand against racism is not trying to score ‘right on brownie points’ - that’s a really cynical view!

Not the US because trump is in your view a racist

India ok, yet the One World Values Survey reported that 43.5% of Indians responded that they would prefer not to have neighbours of a different race. AND as you say Modi is in a similar vein as trump.

I guess your principles are your principles and yours to apply as you see fit

I never said India is ‘ok’, but if we never go then grandparents don’t see grandkids, we don’t see half the family, etc. India under Modi has certainly emboldened certain segments to be overtly racist. It’s a sad state of affairs.

Interesting site, the World Values Survey database. The question you refer to scored c.35% around 1990, c.25% in 2012. Where does 43% come from - I couldn’t find anything more recent for India?

darkhairedlord

pangolin said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-55996938

Fishermen are to rename two of their biggest exports in a bid to attract British consumers after post-Brexit difficulties selling to the EU.

Megrim sole is to be sold as Cornish sole, with spider crab being rebranded as Cornish King crab.

And they call languistine Scampi again. Anecdotally this has fallen in price,
#brexit-win

kingstongraham

pangolin said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-55996938

Fishermen are to rename two of their biggest exports in a bid to attract British consumers after post-Brexit difficulties selling to the EU.

Megrim sole is to be sold as Cornish sole, with spider crab being rebranded as Cornish King crab.

Call them that, and they could apply for protected geographic status for them.

david37

pinkbikini said:

david37 said:

pinkbikini said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Presumably the US is somewhere PB and Mrs PB would otherwise be inclined to visit whereas the likes of North Korea, Myanmar, Belarus or even Russia / China aren't likely holiday destinations?

Or maybe saying that you won't holiday in (say) Turkey because Erdoğan is an authoritarian git doesn't score quite as many right on brownie points?

I just expected more of a country that is ‘leader of the free world’. Trumpet came storming out of the gates with his (in my view) racist agenda - the travel ban was just about the first policy he enacted. It seemed so clear which direction he was heading.

I chose not to use my discretionary holiday spending in the US because of this.

I’m as guilty of hypocrisy as the next person. Still went to visit family in India (although that’s a little less discretionary) and I think Modi employs similar tactics in stoking racial division.

Trying to take a principled stand against racism is not trying to score ‘right on brownie points’ - that’s a really cynical view!

Not the US because trump is in your view a racist

India ok, yet the One World Values Survey reported that 43.5% of Indians responded that they would prefer not to have neighbours of a different race. AND as you say Modi is in a similar vein as trump.

I guess your principles are your principles and yours to apply as you see fit

I never said India is ‘ok’, but if we never go then grandparents don’t see grandkids, we don’t see half the family, etc. India under Modi has certainly emboldened certain segments to be overtly racist. It’s a sad state of affairs.

Interesting site, the World Values Survey database. The question you refer to scored c.35% around 1990, c.25% in 2012. Where does 43% come from - I couldn’t find anything more recent for India?

World values survey wave 5 is 2009 the question is V35. The corresponding V number for other surveys before and after is listed in there. The data it presents requires some "interpretation and reading" to understand it. but its all there. I have no idea what validity the survey has but it seems pretty good.

Check out the USA

ballysmate

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

For me, the EU was expanding out of what it should be doing as a trading block and the UK should have just stayed in and fought to keep it on track.

As I've said before, if the EU had kept to the brief of being a trading bloc I'm sure we would still be in.

Sadly the EU has no reverse gear, so the absolute best you could do would be to keeps things 'as is' for as long as possible. All the EU has to do is wait until more compliant national governments are elected to push through the next round of integration.

Yep, if it were solely a trading bloc and hadn't got designs on being a state we would have been its biggest cheer leaders.

This is such a weak argument as the UK made it clear it never wanted that and had a veto on that happening.

You honestly don't think that is the end goal?
The direction of travel has been one way and even the EU have stated that they want further integration.
The EU wants rid of the foreign policy veto, tax harmonisation and tax raising powers. That's more one way travel.

As I have said before, any veto is only valid if the PM is willing to use it. For instance, would a Ken Clarke PM (or Nick Clegg 😰) be as likely to use it as a Boris Johnson PM?

ballysmate

pblakeney said:

Worked for sea bass, didn’t it?

In Whitby, I treated myself to a tasty piece of woof.
And no, it's not dogfish.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/26/specieswatch-could-we-farm-the-scary-but-shy-atlantic-wolffish

pangolin

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

For me, the EU was expanding out of what it should be doing as a trading block and the UK should have just stayed in and fought to keep it on track.

As I've said before, if the EU had kept to the brief of being a trading bloc I'm sure we would still be in.

Sadly the EU has no reverse gear, so the absolute best you could do would be to keeps things 'as is' for as long as possible. All the EU has to do is wait until more compliant national governments are elected to push through the next round of integration.

Yep, if it were solely a trading bloc and hadn't got designs on being a state we would have been its biggest cheer leaders.

This is such a weak argument as the UK made it clear it never wanted that and had a veto on that happening.

You honestly don't think that is the end goal?
The direction of travel has been one way and even the EU have stated that they want further integration.
The EU wants rid of the foreign policy veto, tax harmonisation and tax raising powers. That's more one way travel.

As I have said before, any veto is only valid if the PM is willing to use it. For instance, would a Ken Clarke PM (or Nick Clegg 😰) be as likely to use it as a Boris Johnson PM?

The direction of travel changed way back in 2016 Bally. There's been a bit of chat about it on here.

The PM not willing to use a veto argument is weak as well. If they are PM we have democratically elected them, so what's the issue?

sungod

ballysmate said:

pblakeney said:

Worked for sea bass, didn’t it?

In Whitby, I treated myself to a tasty piece of woof.
And no, it's not dogfish.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/26/specieswatch-could-we-farm-the-scary-but-shy-atlantic-wolffish

cod are ugly, taste nice though

then there're northern sole...

elbowloh

I saw a "double ugly" fish in Alaska. I don't think they eat them.

ballysmate

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

For me, the EU was expanding out of what it should be doing as a trading block and the UK should have just stayed in and fought to keep it on track.

As I've said before, if the EU had kept to the brief of being a trading bloc I'm sure we would still be in.

Sadly the EU has no reverse gear, so the absolute best you could do would be to keeps things 'as is' for as long as possible. All the EU has to do is wait until more compliant national governments are elected to push through the next round of integration.

Yep, if it were solely a trading bloc and hadn't got designs on being a state we would have been its biggest cheer leaders.

This is such a weak argument as the UK made it clear it never wanted that and had a veto on that happening.

You honestly don't think that is the end goal?
The direction of travel has been one way and even the EU have stated that they want further integration.
The EU wants rid of the foreign policy veto, tax harmonisation and tax raising powers. That's more one way travel.

As I have said before, any veto is only valid if the PM is willing to use it. For instance, would a Ken Clarke PM (or Nick Clegg 😰) be as likely to use it as a Boris Johnson PM?

The direction of travel changed way back in 2016 Bally. There's been a bit of chat about it on here.

The PM not willing to use a veto argument is weak as well. If they are PM we have democratically elected them, so what's the issue?

Getting rid of he foreign policy veto, tax harmonisation and tax raising powers are on the agenda post 2016.
2020 in fact.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

For me, the EU was expanding out of what it should be doing as a trading block and the UK should have just stayed in and fought to keep it on track.

As I've said before, if the EU had kept to the brief of being a trading bloc I'm sure we would still be in.

Sadly the EU has no reverse gear, so the absolute best you could do would be to keeps things 'as is' for as long as possible. All the EU has to do is wait until more compliant national governments are elected to push through the next round of integration.

Yep, if it were solely a trading bloc and hadn't got designs on being a state we would have been its biggest cheer leaders.

This is such a weak argument as the UK made it clear it never wanted that and had a veto on that happening.

No it's not. See my point above about the EU playing the long game on this.

elbowloh

pangolin said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-55996938

Fishermen are to rename two of their biggest exports in a bid to attract British consumers after post-Brexit difficulties selling to the EU.

Megrim sole is to be sold as Cornish sole, with spider crab being rebranded as Cornish King crab.

Lunch anyone?

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

For me, the EU was expanding out of what it should be doing as a trading block and the UK should have just stayed in and fought to keep it on track.

As I've said before, if the EU had kept to the brief of being a trading bloc I'm sure we would still be in.

Sadly the EU has no reverse gear, so the absolute best you could do would be to keeps things 'as is' for as long as possible. All the EU has to do is wait until more compliant national governments are elected to push through the next round of integration.

Yep, if it were solely a trading bloc and hadn't got designs on being a state we would have been its biggest cheer leaders.

This is such a weak argument as the UK made it clear it never wanted that and had a veto on that happening.

No it's not. See my point above about the EU playing the long game on this.

Arguably we made it more likely to happen by leaving. Good luck to them.

kingstongraham

There used to be a two track EU.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

For me, the EU was expanding out of what it should be doing as a trading block and the UK should have just stayed in and fought to keep it on track.

As I've said before, if the EU had kept to the brief of being a trading bloc I'm sure we would still be in.

Sadly the EU has no reverse gear, so the absolute best you could do would be to keeps things 'as is' for as long as possible. All the EU has to do is wait until more compliant national governments are elected to push through the next round of integration.

Yep, if it were solely a trading bloc and hadn't got designs on being a state we would have been its biggest cheer leaders.

This is such a weak argument as the UK made it clear it never wanted that and had a veto on that happening.

No it's not. See my point above about the EU playing the long game on this.

Arguably we made it more likely to happen by leaving. Good luck to them.

True.

rick_chasey

So am I right that the UK gov't is now asking for an extended grace period?

rick_chasey

rick_chasey said:

So am I right that the UK gov't is now asking for an extended grace period?

Seems to be other way around? Anyone? Seems to be different wherever I read it.

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

rick_chasey said:

So am I right that the UK gov't is now asking for an extended grace period?

Seems to be other way around? Anyone? Seems to be different wherever I read it.

Given the word to the government's media outlet of choice is that the EU is set to reject the UK's request for a two year extension in favour of a shorter extension, that's at least the word that they want out there. The big bad article 16 considering EU imposing what was agreed against the UK's wishes.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

rick_chasey said:

So am I right that the UK gov't is now asking for an extended grace period?

Seems to be other way around? Anyone? Seems to be different wherever I read it.

Grace period for what?

kingstongraham

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

rick_chasey said:

So am I right that the UK gov't is now asking for an extended grace period?

Seems to be other way around? Anyone? Seems to be different wherever I read it.

Grace period for what?

Export Health Certificates for animal products and customs declarations for small parcels for deliveries from Britain to NI. Due to come in on April 1st after a 3 month grace period.

surrey_commuter

kingstongraham said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

rick_chasey said:

So am I right that the UK gov't is now asking for an extended grace period?

Seems to be other way around? Anyone? Seems to be different wherever I read it.

Grace period for what?

Export Health Certificates for animal products and customs declarations for small parcels for deliveries from Britain to NI. Due to come in on April 1st after a 3 month grace period.

I thought we asked for 18 months and will get 6?

Stevo_666

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

For me, the EU was expanding out of what it should be doing as a trading block and the UK should have just stayed in and fought to keep it on track.

As I've said before, if the EU had kept to the brief of being a trading bloc I'm sure we would still be in.

Sadly the EU has no reverse gear, so the absolute best you could do would be to keeps things 'as is' for as long as possible. All the EU has to do is wait until more compliant national governments are elected to push through the next round of integration.

Yep, if it were solely a trading bloc and hadn't got designs on being a state we would have been its biggest cheer leaders.

This is such a weak argument as the UK made it clear it never wanted that and had a veto on that happening.

You honestly don't think that is the end goal?
The direction of travel has been one way and even the EU have stated that they want further integration.
The EU wants rid of the foreign policy veto, tax harmonisation and tax raising powers. That's more one way travel.

As I have said before, any veto is only valid if the PM is willing to use it. For instance, would a Ken Clarke PM (or Nick Clegg 😰) be as likely to use it as a Boris Johnson PM?

The direction of travel changed way back in 2016 Bally. There's been a bit of chat about it on here.

The PM not willing to use a veto argument is weak as well. If they are PM we have democratically elected them, so what's the issue?

Getting rid of he foreign policy veto, tax harmonisation and tax raising powers are on the agenda post 2016.
2020 in fact.

Also, I'm trying to think of an example where the EU gave back significant powers or decision making rights to member states. Any ideas?

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

For me, the EU was expanding out of what it should be doing as a trading block and the UK should have just stayed in and fought to keep it on track.

As I've said before, if the EU had kept to the brief of being a trading bloc I'm sure we would still be in.

Sadly the EU has no reverse gear, so the absolute best you could do would be to keeps things 'as is' for as long as possible. All the EU has to do is wait until more compliant national governments are elected to push through the next round of integration.

Yep, if it were solely a trading bloc and hadn't got designs on being a state we would have been its biggest cheer leaders.

This is such a weak argument as the UK made it clear it never wanted that and had a veto on that happening.

You honestly don't think that is the end goal?
The direction of travel has been one way and even the EU have stated that they want further integration.
The EU wants rid of the foreign policy veto, tax harmonisation and tax raising powers. That's more one way travel.

As I have said before, any veto is only valid if the PM is willing to use it. For instance, would a Ken Clarke PM (or Nick Clegg 😰) be as likely to use it as a Boris Johnson PM?

The direction of travel changed way back in 2016 Bally. There's been a bit of chat about it on here.

The PM not willing to use a veto argument is weak as well. If they are PM we have democratically elected them, so what's the issue?

Getting rid of he foreign policy veto, tax harmonisation and tax raising powers are on the agenda post 2016.
2020 in fact.

Also, I'm trying to think of an example where the EU gave back significant powers or decision making rights to member states. Any ideas?

can somebody who understands these things more tell me whether this is still the anger or into the bargaining stage?

kingstongraham

They agreed to remove the commitment to "ever closer union" for one country that requested it.

elbowloh

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

rick_chasey said:

So am I right that the UK gov't is now asking for an extended grace period?

Seems to be other way around? Anyone? Seems to be different wherever I read it.

Grace period for what?

Export Health Certificates for animal products and customs declarations for small parcels for deliveries from Britain to NI. Due to come in on April 1st after a 3 month grace period.

I thought we asked for 18 months and will get 6?

The government have obviously worked as stall owners in the souk in Marrakesh. They should have asked for 3 years to start with and end up agreeing 18 months. Amateurs.

surrey_commuter

elbowloh said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

rick_chasey said:

So am I right that the UK gov't is now asking for an extended grace period?

Seems to be other way around? Anyone? Seems to be different wherever I read it.

Grace period for what?

Export Health Certificates for animal products and customs declarations for small parcels for deliveries from Britain to NI. Due to come in on April 1st after a 3 month grace period.

I thought we asked for 18 months and will get 6?

The government have obviously worked as stall owners in the souk in Marrakesh. They should have asked for 3 years to start with and end up agreeing 18 months. Amateurs.

do we know why they have changed their mind as it only seems like weeks ago that they were adamant there was no need to extend the transition period as after 4 years the lack of preparation was down to willfullness and indolence.

NI has left the UK customs union and now must pivot to the RoI and EU

TheBigBean

It's an evolving protocol and that needs to pass the deomocractic test in four years.

kingstongraham

surrey_commuter said:

elbowloh said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

rick_chasey said:

So am I right that the UK gov't is now asking for an extended grace period?

Seems to be other way around? Anyone? Seems to be different wherever I read it.

Grace period for what?

Export Health Certificates for animal products and customs declarations for small parcels for deliveries from Britain to NI. Due to come in on April 1st after a 3 month grace period.

I thought we asked for 18 months and will get 6?

The government have obviously worked as stall owners in the souk in Marrakesh. They should have asked for 3 years to start with and end up agreeing 18 months. Amateurs.

do we know why they have changed their mind as it only seems like weeks ago that they were adamant there was no need to extend the transition period as after 4 years the lack of preparation was down to willfullness and indolence.

NI has left the UK customs union and now must pivot to the RoI and EU

They agreed to it to get past the immediate blocking issue without worrying about what it meant.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

For me, the EU was expanding out of what it should be doing as a trading block and the UK should have just stayed in and fought to keep it on track.

As I've said before, if the EU had kept to the brief of being a trading bloc I'm sure we would still be in.

Sadly the EU has no reverse gear, so the absolute best you could do would be to keeps things 'as is' for as long as possible. All the EU has to do is wait until more compliant national governments are elected to push through the next round of integration.

Yep, if it were solely a trading bloc and hadn't got designs on being a state we would have been its biggest cheer leaders.

This is such a weak argument as the UK made it clear it never wanted that and had a veto on that happening.

You honestly don't think that is the end goal?
The direction of travel has been one way and even the EU have stated that they want further integration.
The EU wants rid of the foreign policy veto, tax harmonisation and tax raising powers. That's more one way travel.

As I have said before, any veto is only valid if the PM is willing to use it. For instance, would a Ken Clarke PM (or Nick Clegg 😰) be as likely to use it as a Boris Johnson PM?

The direction of travel changed way back in 2016 Bally. There's been a bit of chat about it on here.

The PM not willing to use a veto argument is weak as well. If they are PM we have democratically elected them, so what's the issue?

Getting rid of he foreign policy veto, tax harmonisation and tax raising powers are on the agenda post 2016.
2020 in fact.

Also, I'm trying to think of an example where the EU gave back significant powers or decision making rights to member states. Any ideas?

can somebody who understands these things more tell me whether this is still the anger or into the bargaining stage?

Just debating the one way nature of EU integration, that's all. Feel free to contribute in a meaningful way.