Jump to content

Interfering in other people's politics.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Is there really chicken shit on the chicken

If there wasn't, there would be no need to chlorinate it.
 

That's the point.
Poor slaughterhouse processes.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

salad without some bird shit on it.

You don't wash salad?

 

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

But modern food poisoning changed characteristics. Less likely to get salmonella but more likely to get unwanted growth hormone.

"Less likely to get salmonella"

Which might kill you

"more likely to get unwanted growth hormone".
Which won't

But the point is that I don't want the US standards that let them sell chlorinated shit as meat.

AND

I don't want the US food standards that let them sell growth hormone as meat.

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

After that the UK can choose to continue to follow some or all or none of these.

Not really.

Because the UK has to make a deal with the US (among hundreds of others)

And the US simply won't let us ban their beef if we want to sell anything in the US.

 

The US isn't going to be in so much of a hurry to sign a deal as the UK is.
So they can sit and twiddle their thumbs while the UK economy tanks.

30 minutes ago, studiot said:

If only they had adopted my solution to the Irish border question, there would have been no problem or issue whatsoever with either the UK or Eire.

I could use a laugh.

Remind us what this solution was- the one that teams of trained deal breakers didn't spot, but you did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I suggest some research, even Wiki, of the Greece-Turkey tensions and conflicts, especially the Cyprus situation. It has briefly turned 'hot' a few times, but it is exactly because both are members

Which is no doubt why the EU wishes to break International Law and steal our fish  ??   I have yet to see any evidence that Boris' Bill breaks any Law national or international. Reporting

Have you seen such a label in a restaurant?     "Figures suggest that the percentage of people who fall ill with food poisoning annually is up to ten times higher in the US than the UK."

Posted Images

23 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

If there wasn't, there would be no need to chlorinate it.

Sorry, I wasn't specific enough. Is there shit on it after all processing, including the chlorine wash? 

 

26 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

You don't wash salad?

 

Again, I'm saying there was once shit on it. You know, from the birds flying overhead.

Bottom line is you seem to be saying that they don't wash the shit off the chicken but simply chlorinate the shit and then ship it to you. I am trying to determine if that is correct or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm saying they don't take care to keep the dead bird's gut in one piece until they have separated it from the edible bits and, as a consequence of this, they need to bleach it

 

It's a matter of not getting the shit onto the meat in the first place.

It's not that I'm so naive as to think the birds ordinarily use a bidet. it's that I think that proper slaughterhouse practice is better than trying to clean  it up afterwards.

 

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

you seem to be saying that they don't wash the shit off the chicken but simply chlorinate the shit and then ship it to you.

If they thought they could wash it clean, they wouldn't need the chlorine, would they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is worthwhile to add that much of the regulations in the US, but also EU are on the the food producers. Compliance (and therefore safety) could be enforced unevenly in either system. One interesting approach in the EU was to extend legal liability to food retailers all the way up to the source (implemented sometime in the 80s-90s). I.e. if the retailer could not demonstrate due diligence, they are held accountable. As a reaction retailers in the UK for example developed their own auditing schemes. This resulted in the formation of a variety of private standards. I.e. as far as I understand it, the EU's general food laws do not have specific mandates or policies to ensure food safety. Rather, the EU has good practice guides, but the companies develop their own food safety plans. The control essentially is on the due diligence level.

In some ways this is echoed in the US, but it can be seen as even more voluntarily. The FDA has more a guidance and education system, and is not really developing or enforcing regulations. Similar to the EU, especially large retailers and producers have developed their own audit system, partially driven by a number of outbreaks of E. coli and Salmonella (though similar outbreaks also happened in the EU). So in the US, market pressures were key elements in developing counterstrategies. Under Obama the US finally started to introduce legislation addressing food safety, increasing the power of the FDA to allow more inspections, for example and focuses more on prevention which now become enforceable by Fed and State authorities. So the logic put in place is now at least theoretically more in line with EU directives. 

However, I think it is worth mentioning that in either system the actual implementation and measures are still primarily developed by the producers and the subsequent food chain. The main regulatory bodies basically just check whether the product is good enough and may penalize if it is not. But what has been brought up in this thread already is the heavy industrialization of animal farming in the US. While these also exist in Europe, there are more smaller farms still competing in the market (though I do think that they have lost ground, too). In the US they tend to be more marginalized and that in itself can be an issue. The subsequent supply chain makes sure that the end product is safe but it can have other issues along the way. Factory farming is a breeding ground for zoonotic diseases, for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

"Less likely to get salmonella"

Which might kill you

"more likely to get unwanted growth hormone".
Which won't

Unless you catch COVID-19.. the likelihood of dying increases rapidly among obese people..

https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/obesity-and-covid-19.html

 

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I'm saying they don't take care to keep the dead bird's gut in one piece until they have separated it from the edible bits and, as a consequence of this, they need to bleach it

... this is quite a controversial hypothesis ...

I would say that after slaughtering animal, its guts have what animal ate prior death, regardless of whether you're in USA or any other country on the world. Unwise separation of internal organs may contaminate entire meat. But it can happen regardless of the country.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sensei said:

... this is quite a controversial hypothesis ...

It's not hypothetical. The US farming/ slaughterhouse practice isn't designed to avoid contamination because they always plan to sluice it with bleach.

"For years, in the US, instead of preventing that chickens get infected with pathogens during all stages of rearing and slaughter, the poultry industry has resorted to chemicals to eliminate bacteria at the end of the meat production chain. In other words, chemical washes aim to make up for inadequate hygiene on farms and abattoirs."

https://www.beuc.eu/blog/what-is-wrong-with-chlorinated-chicken/


"US’s salmonella problem has been particularly hard to control. The USDA doesn’t treat salmonella as an “adulterant,” meaning unlike E. Coli, salmonella contamination won’t trigger a recall. The USDA began routinely testing chicken for salmonella in February 2016, and finally set a “maximum acceptable” rate of contamination at 15.4%."

https://qz.com/1037737/will-post-brexit-uk-swallow-americas-chlorinated-chicken-for-a-trade-deal/

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CharonY said:

That is roughly what I think, too. My biggest worry is if folks try to use the lowest common denominator. 

My hope is that the US might adopt something closer to EU standards at some point in the future. Now that many Nation States are in or entering into one Union or another, I figure we'll start moving towards super-blocs next.

 

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I'm glad my OP provided you Gentlemen and Ladies with some lively discussion after initial adverse reactions had settled down.

Nowhere did I say that I wished to prevent anyone buying American food and eating it or feeding it to the dogs or whatever.
I said I don't wish to be stuck with it as the only stock on offer in the supermarket.

So the argument should not be "should we allow US food or not" , in my view of course we should.
But only so long as it does not displace other offerings.
It is not so long since my celiac friends could not buy anything in the supermarket.

I don't trust Boris not to "Cry Havoc and let loose the dogs".

Talking of Boris and the other part of this thread.

I don't agree.

Ministers have been wrong often enough before and the gutter press even more often.
If only they had adopted my solution to the Irish border question, there would have been no problem or issue whatsoever with either the UK or Eire.
Mrs May could have chosen this path and had a trade deal by now, but insted let this Irish issue break her.

 

The long and the short of it is there is no breach of international or national law.
The situation is that at present the UK has left the EU but has agreed to adhere to all the rules and standards of the EU until at least 31st Dec 2020.
After that the UK can choose to continue to follow some or all or none of these.
The Bill does nothing to change this, merely allows the UK government to choose one of these options after the given date.

The EU want to force the UK to continue with their rules on their terms.

As to the Fish, catch quotas (as currently set by the EU) in UK national waters may be sold on an annual basis.
My relatives in Aberdeen (one of the UK's principal fishing ports) tell me that the EU wish to force the UK to continue this into the indefinite future, as do the Scottish Nationalists.

 

WA also contains parts that continue on past the withdrawal date. Everyone else will see the Internal Market Bill as the UK attempting to give itself an opt out.

 

UK could have simply bought the quotas back honestly or worked out a gradual decrease of foreign fishermen. UK government just seems phenomenally cheap for all the money the manage to blow on bridges, satellite projects and truck parks.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

My hope is that the US might adopt something closer to EU standards at some point in the future. Now that many Nation States are in or entering into one Union or another, I figure we'll start moving towards super-blocs next.

 

WA also contains parts that continue on past the withdrawal date. Everyone else will see the Internal Market Bill as the UK attempting to give itself an opt out.

 

UK could have simply bought the quotas back honestly or worked out a gradual decrease of foreign fishermen. UK government just seems phenomenally cheap for all the money the manage to blow on bridges, satellite projects and truck parks.

 

 

If you think EU standards are good, think again.

Nearly all Euronorm standards are inferior to the good old BS they replaced.
It is my opinion that the UK ought to be a beacon of higher standards, not lower.

Yes WA does, but I see no evidence that the EU considers itself bound to follow any of them.
Look at the way it bullied Eire a couple of years back over their due deomocratic process.
They didn't like the resuult of the Eire poll so they made them keep going back to vote again until they returned the result the unelected commisioners wanted.

The EU simply has no right to expect to interfere in what will be a totally sovereign nation after 31st Dec 2020.
Next we will here they want to drill for oil off Cornwall, or somesuch.

I'm glad you mentioned bridges, satellites and truck parks.

What's wrong with with bridges ?

The UK has been one of the major contributors to the EU satnav system to be.
Yet, despite all that, the first thing the EU said in the negotiations is that they would not allow the UK access to it anymore and not pay back a penny we gave them.

Truck parks ?
Well the EU exports more to the UK than the UK does to the EU.
Yet the UK has to build truck parks to accomodate the flood of EU trucks.
Good show if we stopped that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

I'm saying they don't take care to keep the dead bird's gut in one piece until they have separated it from the edible bits and, as a consequence of this, they need to bleach it

 

So you aren't eating bleached shit...

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

If they thought they could wash it clean, they wouldn't need the chlorine, would they?

Chlorine is not used to wash shit off chickens, it is used to kill pathogens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, studiot said:

Nearly all Euronorm standards are inferior to the good old BS they replaced.
It is my opinion that the UK ought to be a beacon of higher standards, not lower.

Well, this is just blatantly wrong. As a whole the European standards have raised the norms in the UK. Despite all the shortfalls, the EU norms as a whole are some (if not the) most developed in the world (and incidentally, the UK was heavily involved in developing these standards). The overall fear is that after Brexit the UK may result in less safe food. The issue is that as I mentioned, there are no fixed regulatory measures to create safe food pipelines. Rather they have been developed following EU directives in what is considered safe food. If now other pipelines are admitted, it may create a mix of procedures that as a whole become less safe. Another issue is that now UK has to develop new internal regulatory structures, for which it used to rely on EU systems. Likely it will stabilize at some point. But there is likely to be a state of uncertainty for some length of time at which issues such as food safety will remain unresolved.

With regard to chlorination, I should add that I think I saw a paper somewhere indicating that chlorination is actually not a great measure as it does not sufficiently reduce the pathogen load, rather it seems that it just makes it harder to detect them.

35 minutes ago, studiot said:

The UK has been one of the major contributors to the EU satnav system to be.
Yet, despite all that, the first thing the EU said in the negotiations is that they would not allow the UK access to it anymore and not pay back a penny we gave them.

I feel that you are quite misinformed when it comes to UK EU relations. First, the Galileo signal services are free for everyone to use (outside the specialized  defence applications). However, what has been said is that UK-based companies will not be able to tender for the production of new satellite components (and also are not allowed to participate in the development of the secure services). This is because the project is and remains an EU initiative. 

Also when it comes to the budget, the UK has invested about 12% of the budget but won about 17-19% of the budget back for industrial and research contracts. I.e. the UK was a net beneficiary of the project (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07734-x).

I mean, we could go through each of these claims, but I think at some point it is time to step back and revisit some basic assumption regarding the benefit-cost situation between EU and UK.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, studiot said:

If you think EU standards are good, think again.

Nearly all Euronorm standards are inferior to the good old BS they replaced.
It is my opinion that the UK ought to be a beacon of higher standards, not lower.

Yes WA does, but I see no evidence that the EU considers itself bound to follow any of them.
Look at the way it bullied Eire a couple of years back over their due deomocratic process.
They didn't like the resuult of the Eire poll so they made them keep going back to vote again until they returned the result the unelected commisioners wanted.

The EU simply has no right to expect to interfere in what will be a totally sovereign nation after 31st Dec 2020.
Next we will here they want to drill for oil off Cornwall, or somesuch.

I'm glad you mentioned bridges, satellites and truck parks.

What's wrong with with bridges ?

The UK has been one of the major contributors to the EU satnav system to be.
Yet, despite all that, the first thing the EU said in the negotiations is that they would not allow the UK access to it anymore and not pay back a penny we gave them.

Was referencing Boris's Garden Bridge and OneWeb actually. You may actually end up rejoining Galileo now that OneWeb plans are being scrapped.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/westminster-news/uk-goverment-could-rejoin-eu-s-galileo-system-92518

 

Quote

Truck parks ?
Well the EU exports more to the UK than the UK does to the EU.
Yet the UK has to build truck parks to accomodate the flood of EU trucks.
Good show if we stopped that.

Right! You should just stop all trade with the EU cold.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

Right! You should just stop all trade with the EU cold.

Soooo.
 No food trade from the EU, and no food from North America.
Bangers and mash, and fish and chips on alternative days, then ?

That pizza is starting to sound good right about now, Dim.

Edited by MigL
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, CharonY said:

The overall fear is that after Brexit the UK may result in less safe food.

That is not the fear that I, as a directly involved englishman, expressed in both the title and the OP.

Are you directly involved or are you an outsider attempting to foist your opinion on others?

13 hours ago, CharonY said:

Well, this is just blatantly wrong. As a whole the European standards have raised the norms in the UK. Despite all the shortfalls, the EU norms as a whole are some (if not the) most developed in the world (and incidentally, the UK was heavily involved in developing these standards).

And it is just opinion.

I know and respect you academic authority in your Life Sciences field.

But how much do you really know about the rest of technological world ?

EU standards are there to protect the interests of continental european industrial companies.Consumers don't get a look in.

Cartography, Bricks, Concrete , Bridges, Chemicals, aircraft, electrical engineering and electricity supply, telecommunications, HIFi, ..... the list goes on and on.

As does the list of my family members and friends who have suffered employment losses due to EU shennanigins.

Maybe we will build our own Galileo, maybe we won't.
Only time will tell.
But you are sadly mistaken about access.

We live in a world where more and more money and other resources are being concentrated in the hands of a few.
Organising ourselves into large 'blocs' will only accelerate this process.

We in the UK need to regain proper control of our own affairs and create some effective government, particularly at local levels, to replace the shambolic clowns we have had over too many decades now.

We will never do that against the inertia of a large bloc where the politics is 'divide and rule'.

 

9 hours ago, MigL said:

Soooo.
 No food trade from the EU, and no food from North America.

 

When I do our twice weekly bake I like to see 'Canadian Wheat' on the label of the bag.
Canadian conditions are ideal for this production, ours are definitely far behind this.
We are, however, better placed to produce other products.
That is a healthy basis for trade.

Artificial quotas, permits and all that baggage are not.

NZ and Oz are similarly better placed to offer the products we used to obtain from there.
I look forward to the day when we will again get the vastly superior and fresher cheese, butter, lamb etc that I remember before the EU blocked all that and forced us to have stuff that had been in their quota system warehouse for sometimes several years.

I can only apologise to folks in those countries that we ever turned our backs on them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, studiot said:

It is my opinion that the UK ought to be a beacon of higher standards, not lower.

Having been involved with  both EU and BS standards committees, I disagree.

I feel that my actual knowledge may  be more valuable than your opinion.

It was fairly common for the EU to simply "rebadge" the British standards.  The most famous example was the "straightness of cucumbers|" standard.

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

EU standards are there to protect the interests of continental european industrial companies.Consumers don't get a look in.

Again, that's not my experience.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

As does the list of my family members and friends who have suffered employment losses due to EU shennanigins.

How?

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Maybe we will build our own Galileo, maybe we won't.
Only time will tell.

And if ew do then we will have paid for it twice in the name of "taking back control".
Do yo uireally think that looks good?
 

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

We in the UK need to regain proper control of our own affairs

I thought everyone, even the diehard brexiteers,  had given up on that one.
We used to have enormous influence over EU standards for a very simple reason.

The discussions and documentation were all done in English.
So we always got the job of actually writing them...


Since we have now left, we have no influence over them.
But, if we wish to sell goods in the EU- and our manufacturing industry is critically dependent on doin gthat, we will still have to comply with EU standards.

In what way is that regaining control?


 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

We live in a world where more and more money and other resources are being concentrated in the hands of a few.

Yes, have a look at the billionaires and their support for "free trade"  rather than, for example, EU membership.
Now, do you think they are doing that so they can relax their grip on all the money?
Seriously, Trump is pro brexit . Do you think he's anti "the rich people getting richer"?

1 hour ago, studiot said:

And it is just opinion.

Would you like a list of the directives?
Or perhaps you should just look at the Mersey.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I look forward to the day when we will again get the vastly superior and fresher cheese, butter, lamb etc that I remember before the EU blocked all that and forced us to have stuff that had been in their quota system warehouse for sometimes several years.

I have good news and bad news
You can get the lamb.
https://www.waitrose.com/ecom/products/waitrose-new-zealand-whole-leg-of-lamb/092701-47653-47654
but only at the expense of realising that you ewre ranting about a non existent problem.

(and there's something very ironic about wanting New Zealand "Cheddar" cheese.)



 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MigL said:

That pizza is starting to sound good right about now, Dim.

Well I did say "I told you so, would seem a little hollow, while tucking into a super-sized pizza"; pizza always sounds good Mig, just not when preceeded by the word vegan; point well missed BTW 😊...

The lowest common denominator is not about how clean or well treated the food is. 

It's about how much profit per gram the yeild can achieve over what can be smuggled into social acceptance, without killing it; the closer the consumer is to starvation, the greater the yeild/profit... 

 

That equation only work's if society doesn't pay for healthcare...

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, studiot said:

That is not the fear that I, as a directly involved englishman, expressed in both the title and the OP.

Are you directly involved or are you an outsider attempting to foist your opinion on others?

I was talking about the fear about scientist in the field. I do work with folks on projects related to food-borne pathogens and while none of us are policy-makers, there is at least some basic expertise related to the mechanism of disease prevention.

 

7 hours ago, studiot said:

EU standards are there to protect the interests of continental european industrial companies.Consumers don't get a look in.

Cartography, Bricks, Concrete , Bridges, Chemicals, aircraft, electrical engineering and electricity supply, telecommunications, HIFi, ..... the list goes on and on.

As does the list of my family members and friends who have suffered employment losses due to EU shennanigins.

Well, taking your example it was fairly easy to dig out information on Galileo usage, funding and research (and if the article is wrong, kindly point out the inaccuracies, please) . I am not sure what you are going about. Essentially you are saying that there is mischief but fail to provide examples (or claiming that they war are there, but somehow invisible?). And the example you decide to provide was easily refuted. From that viewpoint I do not see that my lack of expertise matters. 

 

6 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

I thought everyone, even the diehard brexiteers,  had given up on that one.
 

 I am not so sure about that one. There is ample evidence that broad support for Brexit was intrinsically linked to xenophobia. Essentially they gave up a stake at a high-end casino and decided to have their own hookers and blackjack because they wanted to prevent Polish folks (and refugees) to get in. The control over other issues was mostly just a handwavy thing about sovereignty and as you noted much of it originated from the UK anyway. 

Several studies since then have identified a perceived immigration threat (together with related indices) as the strongest predictors for Brexiteers. Of course that does not meant that it applies to every single person but it is what consolidated the masses and the rest was just glued together by a tried-and-true method called "lying". Lying about the cost of the EU, lying about the benefits, lying about the implications of an exit and so on. As long as most folks "feel" that a perceived was addressed, they are fine with it. It is literally the same thing right-wing playbook happening across Europe and in many ways supported by foreign elements folks such as Bannon. It is just said that these strategies are so successful. But I guess that is what happens going forward in a fact-free era.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, John Cuthber said:
21 hours ago, studiot said:

It is my opinion that the UK ought to be a beacon of higher standards, not lower.

Having been involved with  both EU and BS standards committees, I disagree.

I have quoted exactly as you have written

So you are one of those who wish to drag our standards further down into the gutter ?

This is a particularly sore point for me as today the rubbish EU standard for auto fuses has cost me just over £100.
I have never seen or heard of an old fashioned British pattern fuse failing in this manner, though I have heard of EU fuses causing problems.
Of course the EU simple endorsed auto manufacturer's practice.
To run salt into it, the manual says that if the warning light appears on the dash it is an electrical/electronic fault not a hydraulic oil fault, which is what would be expected from the symptoms.
Then of course there were the laughable EU vehicle emission standards and fuel consumption standards, as policed by that industry.
Have you already forgotton those?

Did you say you were also responsible for the straight banana police?

As you also responsible for the British input to EU standards for apples?

Somerset is, of course, one of the counties famous for its apples.
But the growers here tear their hair out at the EU grading system (which strangely enough exactly matches the tasteless French 'golden delicious' variety over the traditional English Cox).
Size is everything with apples it seems.

Nowhere did I say NZ cheese, you should be well aware of the Anchor brand and the price premium (inport duty) it currently enjoys as of course also happens to NZ lamb.

6 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

And if ew do then we will have paid for it twice in the name of "taking back control".
Do yo uireally think that looks good?

No I think it looks really bad to be put in that position after we offered continued cooperation.
But annoying for us as the injured party and bad image for the EU.

 

2 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Weren't the Americans important in brokering the Good Friday agreement? If so it seems they can reasonably claim to have a stake in the matter. 

As a reasonable question asked in a reasonable manner; yes I think they were.

What exactly about the GFA worries you ?
What do you think I am suggesting the UK should / will do ?
 

43 minutes ago, CharonY said:

foreign elements folks such as Bannon

Who is Bannon ?

I thought he was 'the fugitive'.

 

Meanwhile. back in the UK,

I take it you are saying that the 'leave' campaign was second only in ineptitude to the 'remain' campaign.

Both were composed of tired arguments and worn out lies that bored most of those who voted.

Neither side offered convincing reasoned arguments for their position, and both avoided talking about what would follow if their point of view prevailed.

But it would seem that no one then or here and now wants to listen (and evaluate) what the 'other side' says. They just want to shout and mock  them down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, studiot said:

Who is Bannon ?

I thought he was 'the fugitive'.

Steve Bannon is one of the many folks who started to weaponize social media in order to influence politics throughout the world. One of the interesting bits is that he himself is not a state actor (such as Russia, who also interfered in various political campaigns in an effort to destabilize European countries). It can also be said that after initial success following the refugee crisis, many of the other campaigns kind of faltered (not least due to the ineptitude of many of the far-right political groups). Nonetheless, Europe has seen a stronger polarization and an overall move to the right over the last couple of years.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I take it you are saying that the 'leave' campaign was second only in ineptitude to the 'remain' campaign.

You could say that. After all, xenophobia is a powerful tool that is associated with the rise of numerous populist movements. It is easier to paint a picture of roses by changing things. Remainers, especially if being honest realistically could only offer business as usual and indicate the economic harm of leaving. So on the hand you have folks stating that if you leave you get all the benefits, none of disadvantages, somehow have simultaneous access to all markets but not following any of the requirements and you get to get to keep the pesky Polish plumbers (who are the only ones offering to show up in the first place) away. The only potentially real benefits in the long term depend quite a bit on rather difficult to assess (such as driving policies that are separate from the EU market), but most I have seen so far are very speculative, whereas most studies do show a clear net negative. It can be said that some of the losses are lower than projected initially. However, the UK did not actually properly leave yet, either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Steve Bannon is one of the many folks who started to weaponize social media in order to influence politics throughout the world. One of the interesting bits is that he himself is not a state actor (such as Russia, who also interfered in various political campaigns in an effort to destabilize European countries). It can also be said that after initial success following the refugee crisis, many of the other campaigns kind of faltered (not least due to the ineptitude of many of the far-right political groups). Nonetheless, Europe has seen a stronger polarization and an overall move to the right over the last couple of years.

Well since I have not heard of him, he didn't do a very good job did he?

But then there is no point using social media to try to advertise or manipulat me since I don't do common social media.
That is the province of the young.
And as I understand it, from what you are saying, they are against the policies of Bannon.

29 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Remainers, especially if being honest realistically could only offer business as usual and indicate the economic harm of leaving.

Not so.

It was open to both sides to show vision.

But neither side has or had any.

I was always worried about the image of 'brexiteers' outside the UK  (inside we generally recognise politicians for the shysters they nearly all are) because only the loudmouth ones got any airtime.
But they only had one vote each and there were not all that many such;  it is cheaper for the media to accept pre-prepared handouts and follow the mouthings of a few than to do some real journalism and go out abnd about to find out what most normal people going about their everyday lives think.

And you have to admit there were an awful lot of them to swing the vote as they did. Especially as most, myself included, didn't expect a brexit win.

People like the friend I went to school with, now a retired solicitor, another friend a retired teacher, the son of another friend just becoming an apprentice and so on.

I watched as 5 useless prime ministers let us slide further and further, giving each one the benefit of the boubt ath the beginning.

Then Boris came along, like W W Ellis, picked up the ball and ran (and gave you American Football).
Sadly that is the only good thing he has done since.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well since I have not heard of him, he didn't do a very good job did he?

The more parsimonious explanation is you’re not paying close enough attention. He was senior advisor to the president 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iNow said:

The more parsimonious explanation is you’re not paying close enough attention. He was senior advisor to the president 

My most humble and sincere apologies for practicing what I preach.

viz Non interference in other people's politics.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, studiot said:

you should be well aware of the Anchor brand and the price premium (inport duty) it currently enjoys as of course also happens to NZ lamb.

Well, yes, I am aware of the Anchor butter  brand.

It is made in Wiltshire.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2569867/Anchor-New-Zealand-butter-Wiltshire-Brand-owner-breaks-tradition-120-years-moving-production-UK.html
 

The rest of your post seeme equally devoid of evidence or rationality.
 

5 hours ago, studiot said:

So you are one of those who wish to drag our standards further down into the gutter ?

Plainly, no.

I was involved as a UK representative, ensuring that the science was good.

You understand what a veto is, BTW?

5 hours ago, studiot said:

I have never seen or heard of an old fashioned British pattern fuse failing in this manner

Fuses are meant to fail- that's their job.
And "a fuse must have gone" ia a staple  of detective stories far older than the EU  standard.
 

 

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Did you say you were also responsible for the straight banana police?

As you also responsible for the British input to EU standards for apples?

No, but thanks for clarifying how much attention you are paying to the facts. 

 

5 hours ago, studiot said:

This is a particularly sore point for me as today the rubbish EU standard for auto fuses has cost me just over £100.

So, it's the "availability "cognitive bias that's at work here.
Always good to know.
 

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Size is everything with apples it seems.

No.

If it was then this wouldn't be 15 pages.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/869232/marketing-standard-apples.pdf

You do realise that, if the UK farmers want to sell apples in the rest of the EU, they will still have to meet the EU's criteria?

But they will no longer have any influence over them.
As I said, I don't see that as taking back control.

I see it as recklessly abandoning a right to veto  bad EU decisions that might harm the UK's interests.

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Neither side offered convincing reasoned arguments for their position,

One side only had lies, but they had better funding.
And you are still rehashing those lies; in the face of reasoning.
And the wheels have come off the lies. The majority now recognise that it was a mistake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_the_United_Kingdom's_membership_of_the_European_Union_(2016–2020)
But Boris won the election on the back of it and isn't he doing a grand job (worst death toll in Europe in spite of being an island. It's almost as if he forgot that we "took back control of the borders").

 

2 hours ago, studiot said:

But then there is no point using social media to try to advertise or manipulat me since I don't do common social media.

You do realise that discussion forar are social media, don't you?
They don't need to be common; they could be as rare as this one.

 

 

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, studiot said:

As a reasonable question asked in a reasonable manner; yes I think they were.

What exactly about the GFA worries you ?
What do you think I am suggesting the UK should / will do ?

I don't know about the GFA nearly enough to comment. My point is only that US diplomats can reasonably claim to have a stake in process. In a similar vein i believe the UK has a moral obligation to stand up for Hong Kong citizens against Chinese measures. China can rightly claim we are interfering in their politics - i don't see that is necessarily a bad thing. 

 

15 hours ago, CharonY said:

Remainers, especially if being honest realistically could only offer business as usual and indicate the economic harm of leaving.

I agree with Studiot on this one. The Remain campaign should have opened with various Churchill quotes favouring European integration, even coining the term United States of Europe, and ended with an excerpt from one of England's great poets, John Donne: 

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.