Cyclone Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 How can replacing one democratic process with another democratic process be labelled de-democratisation Jeffrey? When you're not interested in the facts or reality you can label things however you like. The leave campaign was all about misinformation and lies, why stop now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 The latest insider info from Jonathan Lis about the state of the negotiations is a sobering read. If May & Davis don't do anything more or better on the exit bill before December...it's going to start getting grim real good, real fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 (edited) The sovereignty argument is a dud. On so many levels. Quite, the US are already saying what laws we need to ditch in order to get a deal, all those food safety rules amongst others.... oops:- https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4854826/top-us-official-says-britain-should-scrap-eu-rules-on-food-to-help-speed-up-trade-deal-with-america/ So Brexit means a foreign power dictating our laws. This is taking back control, right? If you think the EU is driving a hard bargain, just wait until the US start making demands! Edited November 7, 2017 by Magilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 (edited) Quite, the US are already saying what laws we need to ditch in order to get a deal, all those food safety rules amongst others.... oops:- https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4854826/top-us-official-says-britain-should-scrap-eu-rules-on-food-to-help-speed-up-trade-deal-with-america/ So Brexit means a foreign power dictating our laws. This is taking back control, right? If you think the EU is driving a hard bargain, just wait until the US start making demands! I very much doubt that this will bother Leavers short- or medium-term. There's no "E" in "US of A" (or in "China", or in "India", or <...>), see That is, it won't bother them until it hits them at home (just like the economic consequences), when general health levels should start to be affected by mass-importing of cheap US-standards food (pushing up obesity at least, if not causing other GM- and sub-standard food -related disorders) on a wide-enough scale years later, that the semi-privatised NHS won't cope with the aging population plus that. Case in point (in reference to the story your linked, i.e. the US commerce secretary for trade being kind enough to remind us all what a trade deal with the USA would involve for UK): But he did suggest there would be problems if the UK chose to keep the current EU ban on genetically modified food and chlorinated chicken. His trip to the UK had allowed him to “address with the UK some concerns we have that they may be tempted to include (provisions) in their agreement with the European Commission (EC) that could be problems for a subsequent FTA (Free Trade Agreement) with the US” Do I need to explain why strong regulatory regimes are required for framing the development and commercialisation of GM crops and foods? I.e. the safety net against all the sorcerer apprentices cooking up zero-cost synthetic soylent green with unknown medium- to long-term environmental and health consequences at the bidding of boardrooms and shareholders? Do I need to explain why US chickens are chlorinated? I.e. the conditions within which they are bred then slaughtered in the US? Who cares so long as the frozen stuffed crust fully loaded pizza is £0.50 in Tesco, right? But then, try and explain causes and consequences to them at that time. "Na-na-na-na-na I'm still not hearing you" Wealthier people still able to maintain a good life hygiene (more free time and disposable income for sporting activities) and to buy quality foods will be alright, though. So at least the gene pool should benefit Edited November 7, 2017 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 (edited) But then, try and explain causes and consequences to them at that time. "Na-na-na-na-na I'm still not hearing you" Hehe, today we have two arch Brexiters in the news yet again, for all the wrong reasons. Boris' bluster will result in a bad deal for the UK, it may also mean an extra 5 years in prison for a UK national. Then we have Priti Patel running her own foreign policy. She runs off on a supposedly private trip abroad, lies to her staff, the head of the FO and the PM. When caught out she lies again that it was just one meeting, when it turns out the meetings were extensive, infact there were 12! Seems she's trying to give UK foreign aid to the Isaeli army on the quiet. Our Foreign Policy looks like it's getting privatised! You couldn't make this stuff up! La-la land just doesn't cover it. On any other day both would be out on their ear, but this Government is so weak and divided they daren't. Strong and stable, remember that Just waiting to hear from Car Boot about how this is all somehow the fault of the EU Edited November 7, 2017 by Magilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 Case in point (in reference to the story your linked, i.e. the US commerce secretary for trade being kind enough to remind us all what a trade deal with the USA would involve for UK): Also worth also noting from that article: He said that it was critical that US interests must be taken into account when finalising an exit deal with the EU, whatever such an agreement might look like. “It is ... important that an eventual Brexit agreement takes into account our commercial interests, and does not hinder development of a closer post-Brexit US-UK relationship by continuing divergent standards and regulations and other protectionist measures,” he said. So the US position is we should negotiate a brexit deal that is in the US's commercial interest. We should also ditch EU standards and regulations, which we played a big part in defining, so we can adopt laxer US ones. Just to remind brexiters, even after brexit UK producers are still going to export far more to the EU than the US and will have to comply with EU regulations to do so. Ditching our standards for US ones will put extra costs on those producers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 (edited) Also worth also noting from that article: He said that it was critical that US interests must be taken into account when finalising an exit deal with the EU, whatever such an agreement might look like. “It is ... important that an eventual Brexit agreement takes into account our commercial interests, and does not hinder development of a closer post-Brexit US-UK relationship by continuing divergent standards and regulations and other protectionist measures,” he said. So the US position is we should negotiate a brexit deal that is in the US's commercial interest. We should also ditch EU standards and regulations, which we played a big part in defining, so we can adopt laxer US ones. <...> Whilst the above quote from the US ComSec indeed translates as what you posted, the fundamental issue is that this course of action would run precisely contrarily to the 'mutual recognition agreement' gameplan posited by the Leave strategists (the Legatum Institute, not to name it ) and upon which the government's negotiating strategy appears to be based (because that's where Davis and Fox are pushing). A fact which the EU knows full well, and by reason of which they're never going to accept 'mutual recognition' as a UK proposal. See Richard North's analysis of the issue in the 6th November entry of his blog, which is far more eloquently put than I ever could (and the simplification or summarisation of which would really be a disservice). Edited November 7, 2017 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 Also worth also noting from that article: So the US position is we should negotiate a brexit deal that is in the US's commercial interest. We should also ditch EU standards and regulations, which we played a big part in defining, so we can adopt laxer US ones. Just to remind brexiters, even after brexit UK producers are still going to export far more to the EU than the US and will have to comply with EU regulations to do so. Ditching our standards for US ones will put extra costs on those producers. What makes you think we are going to do as the USA wants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 What makes you think we are going to do as the USA wants? What makes you think we won't? It is a fair question though, but the signals coming from this cabinet are worrying - the UK is one of few countries in the EU (Ireland and Poland being the others) that is actually going ahead with fracking, for example, all driven by big US corporations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 What makes you think we are going to do as the USA wants? Do you think a donald trump government will do what we want? They have the position of power, we dont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts