BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Wrong. Pre Brexit we had no choice regarding whether to unilaterally alter our trade terms with other countries. That's a fact.rjsterry said:
At no point in our history has the country had no choice at all. The UK chose to sign up to EU membership and then it chose to cancel that membership. There was no point where we had no choice. This whole choice argument is such utter bollocks. It's a teenager screaming "you're not the boss of me" from their bedroom.Stevo_666 said:
The point stands and you know it's not possible to have less choice than none at all.kingstongraham said:
If you insist on misunderstanding the article to talk about choice, that's your decision.Stevo_666 said:
I think you're avoiding answering. If we had no choice in the matter before, how can we have less choice now? Negative choice is an interesting conceptkingstongraham said:
I think you didn't read the article.Stevo_666 said:
So you think we have less choice?kingstongraham said:
Did you read the article? It was all about taking the EU rules and NOT having them reciprocated in a trade deal. That's all it was about.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above. How do you think we have less choice or freedom to decide on this matter than pre-Brexit?kingstongraham said:
You sure you read the article?Stevo_666 said:
This is a proposal which could apply globally, of which the EU is one option given it is a part of the global economy (approx 13% if you recall).kingstongraham said:
The article is literally about accepting EU rules without it being part of any deal.Stevo_666 said:
It's a recommendation. And the CE mark is only one specific part of any arrangements with the EU. Although tbh I think the CE mark is just about good enough for the UK to let their stuff in.kingstongraham said:
From the article:Stevo_666 said:
I think he is referring to rest of the world as we already have a deal with the EU...just in case you weren't being sarcasticpangolin said:We are finally free to adopt EU rules.
However, the IEA says Britain must nevertheless unilaterally recognise EU rules and the CE mark in the interest of a “new radical free trade policy”.“The UK has an opportunity to lead the world with a radical trade policy of recognising regulations, without requiring reciprocity, starting with the EU.
If that is what happens (as seems inevitable), then we have no more freedom in this area, no say in setting the rules, and an additional layer of red tape.
Never thought you'd describe yourself as a teenager "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The important thing isn't whether we ban it or not.skyblueamateur said:You can take foie gras off the Brexit bonus list as predictably they’ve flapped it
It's that we have the opportunity to ban it.
0 -
Do you not find it a bit sad that the EU has to use Brexit as an excuse to try to steal business in this way because they clearly haven't been able to win it by competing for it?rick_chasey said:
Yeah sure. Alas, that's the logic of Brexit, right?TheBigBean said:All the participants who like to net off their positions in a big market and like English law.
The whole logic of Brexit is not in the interest of market efficiency.
Had it not happened, the regulators would have no need to relocate clearing."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Pre-Brexit we had the choice to leave the EU, thus altering our trade terms. Pretty sure Article 50 notification was a unilateral decision. How can we have not had any choice if we chose to leave? Are you saying we had to get the EU's permission to leave?Stevo_666 said:
Wrong. Pre Brexit we had no choice regarding whether to unilaterally alter our trade terms with other countries. That's a fact.rjsterry said:
At no point in our history has the country had no choice at all. The UK chose to sign up to EU membership and then it chose to cancel that membership. There was no point where we had no choice. This whole choice argument is such utter bollocks. It's a teenager screaming "you're not the boss of me" from their bedroom.Stevo_666 said:
The point stands and you know it's not possible to have less choice than none at all.kingstongraham said:
If you insist on misunderstanding the article to talk about choice, that's your decision.Stevo_666 said:
I think you're avoiding answering. If we had no choice in the matter before, how can we have less choice now? Negative choice is an interesting conceptkingstongraham said:
I think you didn't read the article.Stevo_666 said:
So you think we have less choice?kingstongraham said:
Did you read the article? It was all about taking the EU rules and NOT having them reciprocated in a trade deal. That's all it was about.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above. How do you think we have less choice or freedom to decide on this matter than pre-Brexit?kingstongraham said:
You sure you read the article?Stevo_666 said:
This is a proposal which could apply globally, of which the EU is one option given it is a part of the global economy (approx 13% if you recall).kingstongraham said:
The article is literally about accepting EU rules without it being part of any deal.Stevo_666 said:
It's a recommendation. And the CE mark is only one specific part of any arrangements with the EU. Although tbh I think the CE mark is just about good enough for the UK to let their stuff in.kingstongraham said:
From the article:Stevo_666 said:
I think he is referring to rest of the world as we already have a deal with the EU...just in case you weren't being sarcasticpangolin said:We are finally free to adopt EU rules.
However, the IEA says Britain must nevertheless unilaterally recognise EU rules and the CE mark in the interest of a “new radical free trade policy”.“The UK has an opportunity to lead the world with a radical trade policy of recognising regulations, without requiring reciprocity, starting with the EU.
If that is what happens (as seems inevitable), then we have no more freedom in this area, no say in setting the rules, and an additional layer of red tape.
Never thought you'd describe yourself as a teenager
Have another try.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
In favour of personal choice.skyblueamateur said:JRM against the ban. Who’d have thought?
As if in some way any other law doesn’t restrict choice.
It was going to be put in place to restrict access to inhumanely produced products
What he means is he sees nothing wrong with it and that’s the argument he should make, not hide behind ‘choice’.0 -
The sad bit is that they
Not only that, but suggesting that the current ban on UK production would be removed as well. To absolutely no-one's surprise.skyblueamateur said:You can take foie gras off the Brexit bonus list as predictably they’ve flapped it
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I think it’s fairly obvious that the context is that whilst in the EU there was no right to unilaterally change the UK’s terms of trade. That is simply a fact.rjsterry said:
Pre-Brexit we had the choice to leave the EU, thus altering our trade terms. Pretty sure Article 50 notification was a unilateral decision. How can we have not had any choice if we chose to leave? Are you saying we had to get the EU's permission to leave?Stevo_666 said:
Wrong. Pre Brexit we had no choice regarding whether to unilaterally alter our trade terms with other countries. That's a fact.rjsterry said:
At no point in our history has the country had no choice at all. The UK chose to sign up to EU membership and then it chose to cancel that membership. There was no point where we had no choice. This whole choice argument is such utter bollocks. It's a teenager screaming "you're not the boss of me" from their bedroom.Stevo_666 said:
The point stands and you know it's not possible to have less choice than none at all.kingstongraham said:
If you insist on misunderstanding the article to talk about choice, that's your decision.Stevo_666 said:
I think you're avoiding answering. If we had no choice in the matter before, how can we have less choice now? Negative choice is an interesting conceptkingstongraham said:
I think you didn't read the article.Stevo_666 said:
So you think we have less choice?kingstongraham said:
Did you read the article? It was all about taking the EU rules and NOT having them reciprocated in a trade deal. That's all it was about.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above. How do you think we have less choice or freedom to decide on this matter than pre-Brexit?kingstongraham said:
You sure you read the article?Stevo_666 said:
This is a proposal which could apply globally, of which the EU is one option given it is a part of the global economy (approx 13% if you recall).kingstongraham said:
The article is literally about accepting EU rules without it being part of any deal.Stevo_666 said:
It's a recommendation. And the CE mark is only one specific part of any arrangements with the EU. Although tbh I think the CE mark is just about good enough for the UK to let their stuff in.kingstongraham said:
From the article:Stevo_666 said:
I think he is referring to rest of the world as we already have a deal with the EU...just in case you weren't being sarcasticpangolin said:We are finally free to adopt EU rules.
However, the IEA says Britain must nevertheless unilaterally recognise EU rules and the CE mark in the interest of a “new radical free trade policy”.“The UK has an opportunity to lead the world with a radical trade policy of recognising regulations, without requiring reciprocity, starting with the EU.
If that is what happens (as seems inevitable), then we have no more freedom in this area, no say in setting the rules, and an additional layer of red tape.
Never thought you'd describe yourself as a teenager
Have another try.
And to observe that the U.K. was free to leave the eu and thus free to change its terms of trade kind of makes the brexiteers point for them. (Though their point is invalid as eu membership was all about a balance of freedoms and restrictions rather than just restrictions.)
1 -
Stevo’s claim was that leaving gives us more choice. Since leaving always was an option we don't have more choice, we have just picked one of the other options always open to us.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think it’s fairly obvious that the context is that whilst in the EU there was no right to unilaterally change the UK’s terms of trade. That is simply a fact.rjsterry said:
Pre-Brexit we had the choice to leave the EU, thus altering our trade terms. Pretty sure Article 50 notification was a unilateral decision. How can we have not had any choice if we chose to leave? Are you saying we had to get the EU's permission to leave?Stevo_666 said:
Wrong. Pre Brexit we had no choice regarding whether to unilaterally alter our trade terms with other countries. That's a fact.rjsterry said:
At no point in our history has the country had no choice at all. The UK chose to sign up to EU membership and then it chose to cancel that membership. There was no point where we had no choice. This whole choice argument is such utter bollocks. It's a teenager screaming "you're not the boss of me" from their bedroom.Stevo_666 said:
The point stands and you know it's not possible to have less choice than none at all.kingstongraham said:
If you insist on misunderstanding the article to talk about choice, that's your decision.Stevo_666 said:
I think you're avoiding answering. If we had no choice in the matter before, how can we have less choice now? Negative choice is an interesting conceptkingstongraham said:
I think you didn't read the article.Stevo_666 said:
So you think we have less choice?kingstongraham said:
Did you read the article? It was all about taking the EU rules and NOT having them reciprocated in a trade deal. That's all it was about.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above. How do you think we have less choice or freedom to decide on this matter than pre-Brexit?kingstongraham said:
You sure you read the article?Stevo_666 said:
This is a proposal which could apply globally, of which the EU is one option given it is a part of the global economy (approx 13% if you recall).kingstongraham said:
The article is literally about accepting EU rules without it being part of any deal.Stevo_666 said:
It's a recommendation. And the CE mark is only one specific part of any arrangements with the EU. Although tbh I think the CE mark is just about good enough for the UK to let their stuff in.kingstongraham said:
From the article:Stevo_666 said:
I think he is referring to rest of the world as we already have a deal with the EU...just in case you weren't being sarcasticpangolin said:We are finally free to adopt EU rules.
However, the IEA says Britain must nevertheless unilaterally recognise EU rules and the CE mark in the interest of a “new radical free trade policy”.“The UK has an opportunity to lead the world with a radical trade policy of recognising regulations, without requiring reciprocity, starting with the EU.
If that is what happens (as seems inevitable), then we have no more freedom in this area, no say in setting the rules, and an additional layer of red tape.
Never thought you'd describe yourself as a teenager
Have another try.
And to observe that the U.K. was free to leave the eu and thus free to change its terms of trade kind of makes the brexiteers point for them. (Though their point is invalid as eu membership was all about a balance of freedoms and restrictions rather than just restrictions.)1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
morstar said:
In favour of personal choice.skyblueamateur said:JRM against the ban. Who’d have thought?
As if in some way any other law doesn’t restrict choice.
It was going to be put in place to restrict access to inhumanely produced products
What he means is he sees nothing wrong with it and that’s the argument he should make, not hide behind ‘choice’.
The election posters kind of write themselves: the famous photo of Ress-Smug lounging on a green bench, with platters full of foie gras and caviar by his side, looking down on oiks like us, proclaiming "Let them eat cake".1 -
He’s a man of the peoplebriantrumpet said:morstar said:
In favour of personal choice.skyblueamateur said:JRM against the ban. Who’d have thought?
As if in some way any other law doesn’t restrict choice.
It was going to be put in place to restrict access to inhumanely produced products
What he means is he sees nothing wrong with it and that’s the argument he should make, not hide behind ‘choice’.
The election posters kind of write themselves: the famous photo of Ress-Smug lounging on a green bench, with platters full of foie gras and caviar by his side, looking down on oiks like us, proclaiming "Let them eat cake".0 -
No need for me to try again. You have misinterpreted my statement about a specific point where we had no choice (ability to alter our trade terms with other countries pre and post Brexit) and you are trying to make a wider argument about general choice. Whether or not that is a deliberate misinterpretation I'm not sure.rjsterry said:
Pre-Brexit we had the choice to leave the EU, thus altering our trade terms. Pretty sure Article 50 notification was a unilateral decision. How can we have not had any choice if we chose to leave? Are you saying we had to get the EU's permission to leave?Stevo_666 said:
Wrong. Pre Brexit we had no choice regarding whether to unilaterally alter our trade terms with other countries. That's a fact.rjsterry said:
At no point in our history has the country had no choice at all. The UK chose to sign up to EU membership and then it chose to cancel that membership. There was no point where we had no choice. This whole choice argument is such utter bollocks. It's a teenager screaming "you're not the boss of me" from their bedroom.Stevo_666 said:
The point stands and you know it's not possible to have less choice than none at all.kingstongraham said:
If you insist on misunderstanding the article to talk about choice, that's your decision.Stevo_666 said:
I think you're avoiding answering. If we had no choice in the matter before, how can we have less choice now? Negative choice is an interesting conceptkingstongraham said:
I think you didn't read the article.Stevo_666 said:
So you think we have less choice?kingstongraham said:
Did you read the article? It was all about taking the EU rules and NOT having them reciprocated in a trade deal. That's all it was about.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above. How do you think we have less choice or freedom to decide on this matter than pre-Brexit?kingstongraham said:
You sure you read the article?Stevo_666 said:
This is a proposal which could apply globally, of which the EU is one option given it is a part of the global economy (approx 13% if you recall).kingstongraham said:
The article is literally about accepting EU rules without it being part of any deal.Stevo_666 said:
It's a recommendation. And the CE mark is only one specific part of any arrangements with the EU. Although tbh I think the CE mark is just about good enough for the UK to let their stuff in.kingstongraham said:
From the article:Stevo_666 said:
I think he is referring to rest of the world as we already have a deal with the EU...just in case you weren't being sarcasticpangolin said:We are finally free to adopt EU rules.
However, the IEA says Britain must nevertheless unilaterally recognise EU rules and the CE mark in the interest of a “new radical free trade policy”.“The UK has an opportunity to lead the world with a radical trade policy of recognising regulations, without requiring reciprocity, starting with the EU.
If that is what happens (as seems inevitable), then we have no more freedom in this area, no say in setting the rules, and an additional layer of red tape.
Never thought you'd describe yourself as a teenager
Have another try."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Just a small example of sovereignty in action as we do have more choice in this specific area - as explained and clarified above after you didn't get my point.rjsterry said:
Stevo’s claim was that leaving gives us more choice. Since leaving always was an option we don't have more choice, we have just picked one of the other options always open to us.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think it’s fairly obvious that the context is that whilst in the EU there was no right to unilaterally change the UK’s terms of trade. That is simply a fact.rjsterry said:
Pre-Brexit we had the choice to leave the EU, thus altering our trade terms. Pretty sure Article 50 notification was a unilateral decision. How can we have not had any choice if we chose to leave? Are you saying we had to get the EU's permission to leave?Stevo_666 said:
Wrong. Pre Brexit we had no choice regarding whether to unilaterally alter our trade terms with other countries. That's a fact.rjsterry said:
At no point in our history has the country had no choice at all. The UK chose to sign up to EU membership and then it chose to cancel that membership. There was no point where we had no choice. This whole choice argument is such utter bollocks. It's a teenager screaming "you're not the boss of me" from their bedroom.Stevo_666 said:
The point stands and you know it's not possible to have less choice than none at all.kingstongraham said:
If you insist on misunderstanding the article to talk about choice, that's your decision.Stevo_666 said:
I think you're avoiding answering. If we had no choice in the matter before, how can we have less choice now? Negative choice is an interesting conceptkingstongraham said:
I think you didn't read the article.Stevo_666 said:
So you think we have less choice?kingstongraham said:
Did you read the article? It was all about taking the EU rules and NOT having them reciprocated in a trade deal. That's all it was about.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above. How do you think we have less choice or freedom to decide on this matter than pre-Brexit?kingstongraham said:
You sure you read the article?Stevo_666 said:
This is a proposal which could apply globally, of which the EU is one option given it is a part of the global economy (approx 13% if you recall).kingstongraham said:
The article is literally about accepting EU rules without it being part of any deal.Stevo_666 said:
It's a recommendation. And the CE mark is only one specific part of any arrangements with the EU. Although tbh I think the CE mark is just about good enough for the UK to let their stuff in.kingstongraham said:
From the article:Stevo_666 said:
I think he is referring to rest of the world as we already have a deal with the EU...just in case you weren't being sarcasticpangolin said:We are finally free to adopt EU rules.
However, the IEA says Britain must nevertheless unilaterally recognise EU rules and the CE mark in the interest of a “new radical free trade policy”.“The UK has an opportunity to lead the world with a radical trade policy of recognising regulations, without requiring reciprocity, starting with the EU.
If that is what happens (as seems inevitable), then we have no more freedom in this area, no say in setting the rules, and an additional layer of red tape.
Never thought you'd describe yourself as a teenager
Have another try.
And to observe that the U.K. was free to leave the eu and thus free to change its terms of trade kind of makes the brexiteers point for them. (Though their point is invalid as eu membership was all about a balance of freedoms and restrictions rather than just restrictions.)
Seems to be a bit of a popular activity in Cake Stop, pouring scorn on freedom of choice but that's probably because the choices lie with the nasty tories and not the nice fluffy Lib Dems or Eurocrats."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The UK can't ban foie gras in the UK“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
@Stevo_666 I’ve always appreciated your input into this discussion. Although contrary at times it’s good to get a different viewpoint.
I appreciate the fact that you believe we now have a choice. Do you believe we are making the correct choices regarding trade?0 -
That did make me laugh when it is was wheeled out as an excuse for not doing it in GB.tailwindhome said:The UK can't ban foie gras in the UK
0 -
Presumably the UK could ban the sale of it in NI, but not the import.tailwindhome said:The UK can't ban foie gras in the UK
0 -
I don't think that leaving the EU standards gives me any more meaningful choice. The ability of the government to ban foie gras would obviously give me less choice.0
-
It gives you a different choice.kingstongraham said:I don't think that leaving the EU standards gives me any more meaningful choice. The ability of the government to ban foie gras would obviously give me less choice.
0 -
Between fewer things.TheBigBean said:
It gives you a different choice.kingstongraham said:I don't think that leaving the EU standards gives me any more meaningful choice. The ability of the government to ban foie gras would obviously give me less choice.
0 -
So it’s not happened?surrey_commuter said:
That did make me laugh when it is was wheeled out as an excuse for not doing it in GB.tailwindhome said:The UK can't ban foie gras in the UK
I thought BB said it was a done deal?😏0 -
It’s made the point that we still don’t have as much choice as we might have thought we did.
All feels very circular.
We have chosen to do things that we could do anyway (passports etc.). And the things we couldn’t do before but now can, we can’t or won’t but we can choose to have no choice but as long as we choose to have no choice, that is better than not choosing but having a choice.0 -
I must admit that I'd trade in the right to ban foie gras for the right to live, work or retire anywhere in the EU, and specifically, in my case, France. Having that taken away is a pretty big deal, whereas I can choose not to eat foie gras.
But yeah, call them just different choices if that makes you happy.0 -
It's not pouring scorn on freedom of choice; it's pouring scorn on the idea that we have 'freed' ourselves from control by others.Stevo_666 said:
Just a small example of sovereignty in action as we do have more choice in this specific area - as explained and clarified above after you didn't get my point.rjsterry said:
Stevo’s claim was that leaving gives us more choice. Since leaving always was an option we don't have more choice, we have just picked one of the other options always open to us.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think it’s fairly obvious that the context is that whilst in the EU there was no right to unilaterally change the UK’s terms of trade. That is simply a fact.rjsterry said:
Pre-Brexit we had the choice to leave the EU, thus altering our trade terms. Pretty sure Article 50 notification was a unilateral decision. How can we have not had any choice if we chose to leave? Are you saying we had to get the EU's permission to leave?Stevo_666 said:
Wrong. Pre Brexit we had no choice regarding whether to unilaterally alter our trade terms with other countries. That's a fact.rjsterry said:
At no point in our history has the country had no choice at all. The UK chose to sign up to EU membership and then it chose to cancel that membership. There was no point where we had no choice. This whole choice argument is such utter bollocks. It's a teenager screaming "you're not the boss of me" from their bedroom.Stevo_666 said:
The point stands and you know it's not possible to have less choice than none at all.kingstongraham said:
If you insist on misunderstanding the article to talk about choice, that's your decision.Stevo_666 said:
I think you're avoiding answering. If we had no choice in the matter before, how can we have less choice now? Negative choice is an interesting conceptkingstongraham said:
I think you didn't read the article.Stevo_666 said:
So you think we have less choice?kingstongraham said:
Did you read the article? It was all about taking the EU rules and NOT having them reciprocated in a trade deal. That's all it was about.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above. How do you think we have less choice or freedom to decide on this matter than pre-Brexit?kingstongraham said:
You sure you read the article?Stevo_666 said:
This is a proposal which could apply globally, of which the EU is one option given it is a part of the global economy (approx 13% if you recall).kingstongraham said:
The article is literally about accepting EU rules without it being part of any deal.Stevo_666 said:
It's a recommendation. And the CE mark is only one specific part of any arrangements with the EU. Although tbh I think the CE mark is just about good enough for the UK to let their stuff in.kingstongraham said:
From the article:Stevo_666 said:
I think he is referring to rest of the world as we already have a deal with the EU...just in case you weren't being sarcasticpangolin said:We are finally free to adopt EU rules.
However, the IEA says Britain must nevertheless unilaterally recognise EU rules and the CE mark in the interest of a “new radical free trade policy”.“The UK has an opportunity to lead the world with a radical trade policy of recognising regulations, without requiring reciprocity, starting with the EU.
If that is what happens (as seems inevitable), then we have no more freedom in this area, no say in setting the rules, and an additional layer of red tape.
Never thought you'd describe yourself as a teenager
Have another try.
And to observe that the U.K. was free to leave the eu and thus free to change its terms of trade kind of makes the brexiteers point for them. (Though their point is invalid as eu membership was all about a balance of freedoms and restrictions rather than just restrictions.)
Seems to be a bit of a popular activity in Cake Stop, pouring scorn on freedom of choice but that's probably because the choices lie with the nasty tories and not the nice fluffy Lib Dems or Eurocrats.
We have exactly the same choices we always had: mutually agree rules with others in return for increased trade or insist on doing things 'our' way and inhibit trade.
It’s not really anything to do with Tories or anyone else, but trust you to bring a partisan angle.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It's like one of those crap restaurants with a twenty page menu: never mind the quality, look how much choice there is!morstar said:It’s made the point that we still don’t have as much choice as we might have thought we did.
All feels very circular.
We have chosen to do things that we could do anyway (passports etc.). And the things we couldn’t do before but now can, we can’t or won’t but we can choose to have no choice but as long as we choose to have no choice, that is better than not choosing but having a choice.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It was, now they're leaking to see how important it is.rick_chasey said:
So it’s not happened?surrey_commuter said:
That did make me laugh when it is was wheeled out as an excuse for not doing it in GB.tailwindhome said:The UK can't ban foie gras in the UK
I thought BB said it was a done deal?😏0 -
That's JRM's view. Misses the point somewhat.briantrumpet said:I must admit that I'd trade in the right to ban foie gras for the right to live, work or retire anywhere in the EU, and specifically, in my case, France. Having that taken away is a pretty big deal, whereas I can choose not to eat foie gras.
But yeah, call them just different choices if that makes you happy.
0 -
TheBigBean said:
That's JRM's view. Misses the point somewhat.briantrumpet said:I must admit that I'd trade in the right to ban foie gras for the right to live, work or retire anywhere in the EU, and specifically, in my case, France. Having that taken away is a pretty big deal, whereas I can choose not to eat foie gras.
But yeah, call them just different choices if that makes you happy.
But if we Brexited so we can do stuff like this, then Rees-Smug can't bare the thought of improving animal welfare because he thinks forcing feed down ducks' throats is something that should be up to freedom of choice, then WTF have we done this for? Is that going to be the get-out clause for everything?
If you go down that 'freedom of choice' route, why did the UK ban sow crates and battery chickens when they were sill OK in the EU? Would Rees-Smug argue that we should still have the right to produce them, because it's all about freedom of choice, or is it only posh food he cares about? Is it OK if it's not produced here, as long as we can import it and it's only furrin animals that suffer?0 -
I did say probablyrjsterry said:
It's not pouring scorn on freedom of choice; it's pouring scorn on the idea that we have 'freed' ourselves from control by others.Stevo_666 said:
Just a small example of sovereignty in action as we do have more choice in this specific area - as explained and clarified above after you didn't get my point.rjsterry said:
Stevo’s claim was that leaving gives us more choice. Since leaving always was an option we don't have more choice, we have just picked one of the other options always open to us.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think it’s fairly obvious that the context is that whilst in the EU there was no right to unilaterally change the UK’s terms of trade. That is simply a fact.rjsterry said:
Pre-Brexit we had the choice to leave the EU, thus altering our trade terms. Pretty sure Article 50 notification was a unilateral decision. How can we have not had any choice if we chose to leave? Are you saying we had to get the EU's permission to leave?Stevo_666 said:
Wrong. Pre Brexit we had no choice regarding whether to unilaterally alter our trade terms with other countries. That's a fact.rjsterry said:
At no point in our history has the country had no choice at all. The UK chose to sign up to EU membership and then it chose to cancel that membership. There was no point where we had no choice. This whole choice argument is such utter bollocks. It's a teenager screaming "you're not the boss of me" from their bedroom.Stevo_666 said:
The point stands and you know it's not possible to have less choice than none at all.kingstongraham said:
If you insist on misunderstanding the article to talk about choice, that's your decision.Stevo_666 said:
I think you're avoiding answering. If we had no choice in the matter before, how can we have less choice now? Negative choice is an interesting conceptkingstongraham said:
I think you didn't read the article.Stevo_666 said:
So you think we have less choice?kingstongraham said:
Did you read the article? It was all about taking the EU rules and NOT having them reciprocated in a trade deal. That's all it was about.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above. How do you think we have less choice or freedom to decide on this matter than pre-Brexit?kingstongraham said:
You sure you read the article?Stevo_666 said:
This is a proposal which could apply globally, of which the EU is one option given it is a part of the global economy (approx 13% if you recall).kingstongraham said:
The article is literally about accepting EU rules without it being part of any deal.Stevo_666 said:
It's a recommendation. And the CE mark is only one specific part of any arrangements with the EU. Although tbh I think the CE mark is just about good enough for the UK to let their stuff in.kingstongraham said:
From the article:Stevo_666 said:
I think he is referring to rest of the world as we already have a deal with the EU...just in case you weren't being sarcasticpangolin said:We are finally free to adopt EU rules.
However, the IEA says Britain must nevertheless unilaterally recognise EU rules and the CE mark in the interest of a “new radical free trade policy”.“The UK has an opportunity to lead the world with a radical trade policy of recognising regulations, without requiring reciprocity, starting with the EU.
If that is what happens (as seems inevitable), then we have no more freedom in this area, no say in setting the rules, and an additional layer of red tape.
Never thought you'd describe yourself as a teenager
Have another try.
And to observe that the U.K. was free to leave the eu and thus free to change its terms of trade kind of makes the brexiteers point for them. (Though their point is invalid as eu membership was all about a balance of freedoms and restrictions rather than just restrictions.)
Seems to be a bit of a popular activity in Cake Stop, pouring scorn on freedom of choice but that's probably because the choices lie with the nasty tories and not the nice fluffy Lib Dems or Eurocrats.
We have exactly the same choices we always had: mutually agree rules with others in return for increased trade or insist on doing things 'our' way and inhibit trade.
It’s not really anything to do with Tories or anyone else, but trust you to bring a partisan angle. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Exactly - statement of fact.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think it’s fairly obvious that the context is that whilst in the EU there was no right to unilaterally change the UK’s terms of trade. That is simply a fact.rjsterry said:
Pre-Brexit we had the choice to leave the EU, thus altering our trade terms. Pretty sure Article 50 notification was a unilateral decision. How can we have not had any choice if we chose to leave? Are you saying we had to get the EU's permission to leave?Stevo_666 said:
Wrong. Pre Brexit we had no choice regarding whether to unilaterally alter our trade terms with other countries. That's a fact.rjsterry said:
At no point in our history has the country had no choice at all. The UK chose to sign up to EU membership and then it chose to cancel that membership. There was no point where we had no choice. This whole choice argument is such utter bollocks. It's a teenager screaming "you're not the boss of me" from their bedroom.Stevo_666 said:
The point stands and you know it's not possible to have less choice than none at all.kingstongraham said:
If you insist on misunderstanding the article to talk about choice, that's your decision.Stevo_666 said:
I think you're avoiding answering. If we had no choice in the matter before, how can we have less choice now? Negative choice is an interesting conceptkingstongraham said:
I think you didn't read the article.Stevo_666 said:
So you think we have less choice?kingstongraham said:
Did you read the article? It was all about taking the EU rules and NOT having them reciprocated in a trade deal. That's all it was about.Stevo_666 said:
See my post above. How do you think we have less choice or freedom to decide on this matter than pre-Brexit?kingstongraham said:
You sure you read the article?Stevo_666 said:
This is a proposal which could apply globally, of which the EU is one option given it is a part of the global economy (approx 13% if you recall).kingstongraham said:
The article is literally about accepting EU rules without it being part of any deal.Stevo_666 said:
It's a recommendation. And the CE mark is only one specific part of any arrangements with the EU. Although tbh I think the CE mark is just about good enough for the UK to let their stuff in.kingstongraham said:
From the article:Stevo_666 said:
I think he is referring to rest of the world as we already have a deal with the EU...just in case you weren't being sarcasticpangolin said:We are finally free to adopt EU rules.
However, the IEA says Britain must nevertheless unilaterally recognise EU rules and the CE mark in the interest of a “new radical free trade policy”.“The UK has an opportunity to lead the world with a radical trade policy of recognising regulations, without requiring reciprocity, starting with the EU.
If that is what happens (as seems inevitable), then we have no more freedom in this area, no say in setting the rules, and an additional layer of red tape.
Never thought you'd describe yourself as a teenager
Have another try.
And to observe that the U.K. was free to leave the eu and thus free to change its terms of trade kind of makes the brexiteers point for them. (Though their point is invalid as eu membership was all about a balance of freedoms and restrictions rather than just restrictions.)"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
