The EU "Deal" - poll!

[dcbwhaley]

Fancy backing that up with some proof? I'd love to see it.

This article is instructive https://www.huffpost.com/entry/these-american-meat-produ_b_5153275

 

[nlogax]

This article is instructive https://www.huffpost.com/entry/these-american-meat-produ_b_5153275

Isn't it just? It's almost like that article is full of facts. And chemicals with long names.

 

[HH]

Having lived in the US for about 18 months I find it laughable that anyone could think that US food regulation is more stringent than Europe. On chickens I only ever bought Amish. Of course, some may like the taste of Chlorine.

 

[furnessvale]

Having lived in the US for about 18 months I find it laughable that anyone could think that US food regulation is more stringent than Europe. On chickens I only ever bought Amish. Of course, some may like the taste of Chlorine.

I understand that the average US consumer gets 99% of his chlorine intake from the chlorine added to drinking water, just like we do in the UK. However US chicken at point of sale has a 2% bacteria (eg salomonella) contamination compared to the EU average of 20%.

 

[Howardh]

I understand that the average US consumer gets 99% of his chlorine intake from the chlorine added to drinking water, just like we do in the UK. However US chicken at point of sale has a 2% bacteria (eg salomonella) contamination compared to the EU average of 20%.

I presume that bacteria - the majority anyhow - is killed by proper cooking, either before it gets to the shops or at home if bought "raw"; whether it's a sausage, chicken or egg.
The issue over chlorine isn't necessarily the chlorine itself, it's the case where the poultry were reported to be kept in appalling conditions where they got sores, cuts, infections etc needing the chlorine to be administered.
If I eat meat I would like it's short life to be in the best conditions possible, regardless of where it is kept, US, EU, China, Argentina, wherever.
If conditions are reported as a disgrace from any country I would avoid that as a moral issue.

 

[HH]

There's also the question of maggots and rat poo. https://www.livescience.com/55459-fda-acceptable-food-defects.html

 

[nidave]

Loook at the graphic. If Parliament rejects the deal they get a 2nd vote. So the hyprocry of government staggers me.

Chancellor says UK will be worse off under all Brexit scenarios

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ammond?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Gooner18]

I think the deal will get rejected , we will have another referendum, which I think this time remain will win , simple due to have all the remain side have sabotaged everything rather than the country moving into negotiations in solidarity as one.
If it comes down to another referendum I would vote remain , however that will be the last time I will ever vote and I fear it will be the same for many others , possibly leaving the door open for an extreme left or right party to sneak in , history repeating itself maybe ?

 

[EM2]

the remain side have sabotaged everything rather than the country moving into negotiations in solidarity as one.

Sabotaged how, exactly? Davis and Raab, the UK's ministers in charge of delivering Brexit are Leavers. I will admit that May was a Remainer, and has put red lines in place that make any sensible deal impossible, so is that who you mean?

 

[Howardh]

I think the deal will get rejected , we will have another referendum, which I think this time remain will win , simple due to have all the remain side have sabotaged everything rather than the country moving into negotiations in solidarity as one.
If it comes down to another referendum I would vote remain , however that will be the last time I will ever vote and I fear it will be the same for many others , possibly leaving the door open for an extreme left or right party to sneak in , history repeating itself maybe ?

Davis, Raab.....sabotaged by your very own...eek.
Should have put Starmer, Benn, Cooper, Grieve, Soubry in charge then.
And if you want the country to have "solidarity" - I'd rather wear a Yorkshire top than get behind Brexit

 

[Ken H]

We have the European Union (Withdrawal) act 2018.
That states quite clearly, that if Parliament fails to endorse a UK/EU agreement, then we just leave on 29th March 2019. We resort to WTO.
This act became necessary because Gina Miller challenged in court the government position that leaving the EU did not require parliamentary approval.

So to extend Article 50, or to have a referendum that has any effect, or to remain in the EU, then a new act needs passing to allow this. But will MP's vote for that when they have not voted for the draft Withdrawal Agreement(WA)? They will have to admit they are negating the the result of a referendum.

If Mays WA fails to pass in the commons, then I would expect a vote of no confidence in the government. I think the DUP will vote against the government, so the vote will succeed. Then the Tories have 14 days to change things to get the DUP on side, then win a vote of confidence, to avoid a general election(GE). They could probably do that by sacking May and installing a caretaker PM acceptable to the Tories and the DUP.
The WA failing in the commons, or losing a vote of confidence does not mean an automatic GE. This is all laid down in The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

DUP = Democratic Unionist Party.

 

[Ken H]

Sabotaged how, exactly? Davis and Raab, the UK's ministers in charge of delivering Brexit are Leavers. I will admit that May was a Remainer, and has put red lines in place that make any sensible deal impossible, so is that who you mean?

the Withdrawal agreement was drafted in no 10 by Olly Robbins, a civil servant, with no input from the brexit department. I am struggling to see what the brexit dept was for...
This is why David Davies and Dominic Rabb resigned.

 

[bramling]

the Withdrawal agreement was drafted in no 10 by Olly Robbins, a civil servant, with no input from the brexit department. I am struggling to see what the brexit dept was for...
This is why David Davies and Dominic Rabb resigned.

It will be interesting in the future to find out just how much freedom Davis / Raab actually were given. I get the *impression*, perhaps wrongly, that May was over their shoulder all the time.

 

[bramling]

We have the European Union (Withdrawal) act 2018.
That states quite clearly, that if Parliament fails to endorse a UK/EU agreement, then we just leave on 29th March 2019. We resort to WTO.
This act became necessary because Gina Miller challenged in court the government position that leaving the EU did not require parliamentary approval.

So to extend Article 50, or to have a referendum that has any effect, or to remain in the EU, then a new act needs passing to allow this. But will MP's vote for that when they have not voted for the draft Withdrawal Agreement(WA)? They will have to admit they are negating the the result of a referendum.

If Mays WA fails to pass in the commons, then I would expect a vote of no confidence in the government. I think the DUP will vote against the government, so the vote will succeed. Then the Tories have 14 days to change things to get the DUP on side, then win a vote of confidence, to avoid a general election(GE). They could probably do that by sacking May and installing a caretaker PM acceptable to the Tories and the DUP.
The WA failing in the commons, or losing a vote of confidence does not mean an automatic GE. This is all laid down in The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

DUP = Democratic Unionist Party.

There has to be a realisation that the clock is ticking fast now. There is now just four months to go, and the prospect of no deal by default must now be regarded as a realistic possibility. Whilst I’m personally happy with no deal, and have always been happy with that as a prepared-for outcome, I would nonetheless be concerned about that scenario arising without any degree of planning and preparation.

A general election won’t necessarily solve anything, as that in itself takes time to prepare and can’t just be arranged at the drop of a hat, and there’s no guarantee of any extension to the timescales from both our side and the EU side. Likewise an election could produce a similar nomansland result to last time, and what would happen if we get the same result but this time no DUP deal? Despite May’s incompetence, I still feel many will hesitate to vote for Corbyn - it’s not like Labour have a clear position, and ultimately many will freak at the prospect of what a Corbyn / McDonnell / Abbott government actually means for them - even more so if there’s any prospect of an SNP deal. In the longer term there could be untold damage to people’s faith in our political parties and politicians, which going forward will ultimately be highly damaging.

I’m increasingly coming to the view that it may have to be no deal, and the country will simply have to take the consequences - arising not from no deal itself but from the lack of preparation for that scenario. There would clearly be a number of major issues, not least what happens with the NI border in the short-term.

 

[Ken H]

There has to be a realisation that the clock is ticking fast now. There is now just four months to go, and the prospect of no deal by default must now be regarded as a realistic possibility. Whilst I’m personally happy with no deal, and have always been happy with that as a prepared-for outcome, I would nonetheless be concerned about that scenario arising without any degree of planning and preparation.

A general election won’t necessarily solve anything, as that in itself takes time to prepare and can’t just be arranged at the drop of a hat, and there’s no guarantee of any extension to the timescales from both our side and the EU side. Likewise an election could produce a similar nomansland result to last time, and what would happen if we get the same result but this time no DUP deal? Despite May’s incompetence, I still feel many will hesitate to vote for Corbyn - it’s not like Labour have a clear position, and ultimately many will freak at the prospect of what a Corbyn / McDonnell / Abbott government actually means for them - even more so if there’s any prospect of an SNP deal. In the longer term there could be untold damage to people’s faith in our political parties and politicians, which going forward will ultimately be highly damaging.

I’m increasingly coming to the view that it may have to be no deal, and the country will simply have to take the consequences - arising not from no deal itself but from the lack of preparation for that scenario. There would clearly be a number of major issues, not least what happens with the NI border in the short-term.

1. HMRC say there is no issue about a 'soft' irish land border. the stuff about a hard border is just hype.
2. Labour are in trouble on Europe. They have a large electorate in London and university cities who are ardent remainers. They have an equally large electorate in old industrial towns and cities in the north who voted leave. I dont think they will survive a general election(GE) campaign sitting on the fence on this.

I am thinking of betting on a no deal exit. I am struggling to think how they can manage anything else given the 29th march deadline.

 

[EM2]

the Withdrawal agreement was drafted in no 10 by Olly Robbins, a civil servant, with no input from the brexit department. I am struggling to see what the brexit dept was for...
This is why David Davies and Dominic Rabb resigned.

Really?!
We've been negotiating with the EU for nearly two years, and a civil servant appointed to a position in September this year decided to draw up an agreement without any input from anyone in the Government, or what was discussed in those negotiations?

 

[bramling]

1. HMRC say there is no issue about a 'soft' irish land border. the stuff about a hard border is just hype.
2. Labour are in trouble on Europe. They have a large electorate in London and university cities who are ardent remainers. They have an equally large electorate in old industrial towns and cities in the north who voted leave. I dont think they will survive a general election(GE) campaign sitting on the fence on this.

I am thinking of betting on a no deal exit. I am struggling to think how they can manage anything else given the 29th march deadline.

I simply can’t see any other solution that delivers any other outcome in the timescale available. May’s deal is widely regarded as having no chance of being approved (assuming the widespread political opinion and analysis is correct). Three months, with
Christmas in there too, just isn’t enough time to run either a general election or a referendum and to decide what happens next, an extension isn’t a given and a lot of people will regard that as a sell-out and that there’s been enough time already. Add in the weak Labour position and the fact Labour clearly has a “hidden” agenda namely Corbyn’s once-in-lifetime opportunity of power, the uncertainty of any election result, and it just doesn’t work.

TM might just have to stick to her guns and if the deal doesn’t get through then announce that we are going with no deal and immediately put in arrangements for that. The legislation apparently is already there.

 

[Ken H]

Really?!
We've been negotiating with the EU for nearly two years, and a civil servant appointed to a position in September this year decided to draw up an agreement without any input from anyone in the Government, or what was discussed in those negotiations?

yup. His draft was bounced on cabinet and became the Chequers draft, and caused brexit secretary David Davies et al to resign. oily robbins has worked for the PM in no 10 since Sept 2017

 

[C.T.P.]

We have the European Union (Withdrawal) act 2018.
That states quite clearly, that if Parliament fails to endorse a UK/EU agreement, then we just leave on 29th March 2019. We resort to WTO.
This act became necessary because Gina Miller challenged in court the government position that leaving the EU did not require parliamentary approval.

So to extend Article 50, or to have a referendum that has any effect, or to remain in the EU, then a new act needs passing to allow this. But will MP's vote for that when they have not voted for the draft Withdrawal Agreement(WA)? They will have to admit they are negating the the result of a referendum.

If Mays WA fails to pass in the commons, then I would expect a vote of no confidence in the government. I think the DUP will vote against the government, so the vote will succeed. Then the Tories have 14 days to change things to get the DUP on side, then win a vote of confidence, to avoid a general election(GE). They could probably do that by sacking May and installing a caretaker PM acceptable to the Tories and the DUP.
The WA failing in the commons, or losing a vote of confidence does not mean an automatic GE. This is all laid down in The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

DUP = Democratic Unionist Party.

wow... you sound really knowledgeable... I have to admit I have no clue what you're on about. Maybe you should become an MP instead of a train driver? just sayin'...

 

[Ken H]

wow... you sound really knowledgeable... I have to admit I have no clue what you're on about. Maybe you should become an MP instead of a train driver? just sayin'...

not a train driver. wish I had been a signaller but ended up in IT where i am bored stiff counting the days till I can retire.

but thanks

 

[geoffk]

MPs say Parliament will block "no deal" as it would be disastrous for the economy. Yes, the European Union (Withdrawal) act 2018 includes the exit date of 29th March so will have to be repealed or amended to remove the date. There is only one other option available, to remain in the EU. A referendum would be unlikely until May next year so that means extending the Article 50 deadline. That's my understanding of it but I'm not a lawyer.

 

[bramling]

MPs say Parliament will block "no deal"

What mechanism do they actually have to block it? My understanding, perhaps incorrect, is that the legislation for "no deal" is already approved, and the clock ticking, so to speak. Perhaps it will end up being the subject of another legal dispute.

Yes, the European Union (Withdrawal) act 2018 includes the exit date of 29th March so will have to be repealed or amended to remove the date. There is only one other option available, to remain in the EU. A referendum would be unlikely until May next year so that means extending the Article 50 deadline. That's my understanding of it but I'm not a lawyer.

Which of course depends on the EU playing ball. In the longer term I think extending the A50 process and/or another referendum would have grave implications for people's faith in UK politics, although that's perhaps an issue for the future.

 

[geoffk]

I think the "faith in UK politics" ship has already sailed.

 

[Ken H]

MPs say Parliament will block "no deal" as it would be disastrous for the economy. Yes, the European Union (Withdrawal) act 2018 includes the exit date of 29th March so will have to be repealed or amended to remove the date. There is only one other option available, to remain in the EU. A referendum would be unlikely until May next year so that means extending the Article 50 deadline. That's my understanding of it but I'm not a lawyer.

remaining in the EU would also need a new act to amend the European Union (Withdrawal) act 2018, as would extending art 50

 

[bramling]

I think the "faith in UK politics" ship has already sailed.

Well yes. The way this whole thing has been handled by the politicians has been appalling.

 

[Ken H]

What mechanism do they actually have to block it? My understanding, perhaps incorrect, is that the legislation for "no deal" is already approved, and the clock ticking, so to speak. Perhaps it will end up being the subject of another legal dispute.

...

They will have to repeal/amend the European Union (Withdrawal) act 2018. Which means they will have to disregard the referendum, and also their manifesto promises.
I would hope that enough MP's have enough honour to vote against any such new law that undermines our very democracy.

 

[Ken H]

I think the "faith in UK politics" ship has already sailed.

and look to France to see what happens when that happens. And Belgium now.

 

[bramling]

They will have to repeal/amend the European Union (Withdrawal) act 2018. Which means they will have to disregard the referendum, and also their manifesto promises.
I would hope that enough MP's have enough honour to vote against any such new law that undermines our very democracy.

It really wouldn’t look good.

The key issue at present seems to centre around a major error on May’s part, namely a failure to prepare for no deal. Leaving without a deal should have always been the default position, and preparations for that should have gone on in tandem with negotiations. It absolutely makes us a laughing stock to be coming out with hard language like “no deal is better than a bad deal” but not backing this up with actions.

Unfortunately rubbish like this happens when someone quietly slips into a job because they’re “none of the above”.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

They will have to repeal/amend the European Union (Withdrawal) act 2018. Which means they will have to disregard the referendum, and also their manifesto promises.
I would hope that enough MP's have enough honour to vote against any such new law that undermines our very democracy.

The trouble is the original referendum was fatally flawed in presenting only a binary choice. The political establishment was not prepared to give the electorate enough credit to make an informed choice insisting that the detail was only for them to decide. We should have had at least four options (two on each side of the argument) with a two-stage poll to eliminate the less popular options. That's how many countries conduct presidential elections, it's not difficult! And the referendum campaign was conducted like a general election completely missing the fact that unlike an election we can't expect to continuously review the outcome of a referendum at subsequent polls. The lack of intelligent rational discussion was a damning indictment on the state of our political system. Given the foregoing I do not think that amending the Withdrawal Act would constitute any betrayal of democracy, more an admission that politicians have made a complete hash of the whole issue from start to finish.

Well yes. The way this whole thing has been handled by the politicians has been appalling.

I hope that the chaos that Parliament is likely to face in the next few weeks may force MPs to reflect on just how useless they've become and either change their ways or give up. Perhaps a chance for a complete shake up of the party system that currently exists. When all is said and done Cameron held the referendum in an attempt to avoid dealing with the obvious split in his own party. All he actually succeeded in doing was to expose the same division in the opposition and bring his own political career to an end.

 

[Ken H]

...
I hope that the chaos that Parliament is likely to face in the next few weeks may force MPs to reflect on just how useless they've become and either change their ways or give up. Perhaps a chance for a complete shake up of the party system that currently exists. When all is said and done Cameron held the referendum in an attempt to avoid dealing with the obvious split in his own party. All he actually succeeded in doing was to expose the same division in the opposition and bring his own political career to an end.

Cameron promised the referendum because he was afraid of UKIP making inroads into his core vote. This was a real thing because UKIP had won the popular vote in the Europeans in May 2014. He was also fearful of a labour/SNP coalition getting into power. So he thought neutralising UKIP by offering a referendum, and campaigning on a 'vote labour or UKIP, get SNP' ticket would win him the election. Seems to have worked.
The crass error Cameron made was that the UK electorate would vote to remain even with his sham negotiations and he seems to have convinced the EU leaders he was right.