Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 03:30 AM

in case we forget, March 27, 1996
The European Commission imposes a world wide ban on all British beef exports.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 03:35 AM

Correctly so Dick, the reason was to prevent the transmission of CJD, and to prevent the presence of CJD in British beef undermining confidence in other European products, including British products.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 03:44 AM

AUGUST 1999
The official end of the export ban is celebrated by farmers as the first consignments of animals due for export are prepared for slaughter and a marketing drive - centred on France - begins.
The farmers are subsequently angered when France and Germany announce they will not lift their bans on British beef because they have further questions over their safety.

NOVEMBER 1999
EU food safety commissioner David Byrne announces the start of legal action against France for refusing to lift the ban.


DECEMBER 1999
French PM Lionel Jospin says his country will not lift the ban and threatens to take the EU to court for trying to force it to take British beef.

FEBRUARY 2000
The European Commission begins legal action against Germany for its failure to lift its ban.

MARCH 2000
Germany agrees to lift its ban but France maintains it will not. Legal action against Paris goes ahead.


The ban on British beef by EU was not lifted until March 2006!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4785610.stm

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 03:46 AM

And it is interesting to think what would happen post Brexit. Would the UK impose a ban on its own products? Possible, but I think unlikely. So each importer would choose whether and when to impose a ban on importing, and then we have a long exercise afterwards convincing each of them to drop the ban. I haven't checked but as far as I remember I think there was some EU support and limited compensation for the UK farmers when cattle were destroyed. If so, would the UK government do the same?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 03:51 AM

"but your comments don't always appear to be consistent."
Not really Nigel
The underlying intention of Ireland has always been to remove a partition that was forced upon them- pride of nation is part of the psyche of the Irish people
But that 'intention' must be in the view of the people of the Republic of Ireland.
You have stated yourself that even within the last decade only 11% of people in Northern Ireland wanted unification.

This is like claiming that there is a clear wish for unification between Spain and Gibraltar, as it's the wish of the majority. That would only be true because of the much larger population in Spain compared with Gibraltar. Gibraltarians overwhelmingly wish to remain part of UK.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 03:51 AM

Not true Keith, the EU ban on British boneless beef exports was lifted in 1999. What remained until 2006 was a ban on the export of live cattle. And possibly on beef on the bone, which is reasonable, we certainly weren't eating beef on the bone for a long time after the ban on general beef products was lifted.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:11 AM

It wouldn't even be that, John. We've already had a second referendum, on 23 June 2016. That was forced on us by people who have never accepted the result of the first referendum. Of course, they'll pretend that it's all to do with "ever-closer union" and "United States of Europe" bollocks. But that isn't at all where they're coming from. They've been at it since the mid-70s, way before any of that arose. Yet the self-same people, the ones who agitated for forty-odd years for a second referendum, will tell you that we are being undemocratic in calling for a rethink. Yet they called for a rethink even after we remainers won a two-thirds majority. They won by a wafer-thin margin in 2016, unlike us in the seventies, yet according to them it's us who are "undemocratic" in calling for reconsideration.

So, as the leavers have had to wait forty years for a reconsideration, why do remainers expect one almost immediately?

Thank you for confirming how long there have been calls for a referendum on leaving. That fact may surprise those who keep insisting that the only motivation is reducing immigration.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:21 AM

What we need is a government of National Unity, maybe led by Ken Clarke, with the more rational wing of the tory party, LAbour, Lib Dems, SNP, Green, and, if the will come on board, Sinn Fein, to put a stop to this nonsense and put the country back on the right road.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:23 AM

"But that 'intention' must be in the view of the people of the Republic of Ireland."
The "people" had a bloody Civil War over partition - it was only ever accepted because of war fatigue - the famine - the evictions - the forced emigrations - the Land Wars - an Imperialist War - a War for Independence, The Civil War, then permanent immigration...
By 1922, the Irish people had had enough and accepted partition on the understanding it would be a temporary measure
The sectarian repression in the North led to bloody violence in which the British establishment carefully chose its side and became an extension of Northern sectarian oppression takes us right up to our recent lifetimes

Voting on whether a single country and culture should be a single entity has always been utter and very dangerous nonsense - partition guarantees a legacy of body-bags for future generations - it always has
What would be oyur reaction if Devon and Cornwall (or more likely Liverpool and The Wirral!) suddenly made a U.D.I.
Would you debate it in terms of breaking England up into pieces or would you describe it as utter nonsense?
Of course dividin a country up into political or religious pieces is an outrageous action
The Spain/Gibraltar issue is a hangover from Empire as was the farcical Falklands War
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:37 AM

Voting on whether a single country and culture should be a single entity has always been utter and very dangerous nonsense - partition guarantees a legacy of body-bags for future generations - it always has
What would be oyur reaction if Devon and Cornwall (or more likely Liverpool and The Wirral!) suddenly made a U.D.I.
Would you debate it in terms of breaking England up into pieces or would you describe it as utter nonsense?

You seem to forget we've recently had just that. There was a claim that Scotland wanted to be independent. If the referendum that they held had shown the claim to be true, they would have become independent.
And before you say that you were speaking about England, not The UK, my interests are in the UK, not in England.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:40 AM

The ban on British beef by EU was not lifted until March 2006!
That give me faith in the integrity of maintaining food quality and concern of the German administrators of Europe, I have crticisms of Europe, but I would rather have the Germans in charge of food than anybody else.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:45 AM

And before you say that you were speaking about England, not The UK, my interests are in the UK, not in England.
To an extent, Nigel. Don't forget that over on the other thread you said that if it came to it and the only way to achieve Brexit was to break up the UK, you would support a break up.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:49 AM

Why not have a second referendum

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:58 AM

And before you say that you were speaking about England, not The UK, my interests are in the UK, not in England.
To an extent, Nigel. Don't forget that over on the other thread you said that if it came to it and the only way to achieve Brexit was to break up the UK, you would support a break up.

I don't recall the comment, but I would imagine it related to the Scottish referendum, and that I favour Brexit. If The Scots would only remain part of UK if the UK remained part of EU then I would be in support of their wish for independence.

Of course, I may have stated it exactly as you show above if the discussion had become heated at that time. But I don't remember that precise quote.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 05:05 AM

David,
Not true Keith, the EU ban on British boneless beef exports was lifted in 1999.

The EU lifted the ban but Germany and France continued with it anyway.
The EU found they were acting illegally and when France persisted it was fined, though obviously it never paid.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 05:51 AM

"So, as the leavers have had to wait forty years for a reconsideration, why do remainers expect one almost immediately?"

Two things. Remain won by miles in the seventies, effectively putting the thing to bed. But you lot just wouldn't shut up (as is your right, of course, a right that some of you leavers would now deny the rest of us). By dint of that you've caused discontent both in this country and in the EU for decades, refusing to become a constructive partner. You won by a sliver in 2016, splitting the country down the middle in the most divisive political manoeuvre this country has seen since the war. I'd call that a significant difference. Second, as I've said, more has changed in the last two years than in the last forty. China now has a dictator for life, Putin is a hooligan and a protectionist moron has been installed in the White House. I can't think of a better time to reaffirm our membership of the EU. David Carter has the best solution. We need a coalition of the willing to restore sanity and ditch this bloody stupid and suicidal project. Sod referendums.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 05:51 AM

Correct, the EU, as in many instances, was fighting our corner.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 06:32 AM

"You seem to forget we've recently had just that. "
No I do not
Scotland acquiesced to British rule - Ireland never has - the Scots Gaelic culture was more or less killed off - the Irish never has been
Acceptance of English domination has been a part of Scottish life for many centuries - Irish history is full of wars for independence
Scotland became part of Britain via the deliberate and extremely brutal destruction of its national and cultural identity
I believe Scotland to be equally a separate country won by conquest and I should hope that one day it will decide to break with England but that will take more time and will depend on something more than a referendum
There are signs that Brexit has made enormous steps to doing that
You might have mentioned Wales of course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 10:13 AM

Wales, now there is somewhere to talk about

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 10:30 AM

Wales, now there is somewhere to talk about

We already are. See the music section for Eisteddfod

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 10:56 AM

we don't need another referendum, we need another general election with a labour party showing as much commitment to remaining as they , quite rightly, do to the destruction of our country's public services. for me , the latter is much more important to our future. if we looked after everyone in our countries and not just the wealthy, then we wouldn't be in this ridiculous brexit mess

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 10:58 AM

A friend crossing with us from Stranraer to Larne with a boatload of raucous Welsh Rugby supporters commented wryly and loudly "The feller who did most damage to British culture was the one who persuaded the Welsh that they could sing"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: j0_77
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 12:09 PM

Well because Steve Shaw has again hit the nail on the head, I am voting for him to be the next Prime Minister of everything!

'"Sacred shitless" sounds like the deification of a bad bout of constipation. Actually I think I'd be scared shitless of a bout of sacred shitlessness. I'll have a rethink and let you know.' Steve Shaw Mudcat August 18 2018.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 06:41 PM

"I am voting for him to be the next Prime Minister of everything!"

Why, that's very grapefruit of you and you'll never see what I'll buy you!

"Steve Shaw Mudcat August 18 2018."

Unfortunately, you may have to wait a while for my thoughts on the 18th. You never know, I may have become a rampant Nigelesque or Keefie clone by then. We all have our nightmares, you know... ;-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 06:24 AM

I see that the pound has soared down to its lowest level against the euro and dollar in a year over fears of a no-deal Brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: MikeL2
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 10:08 AM

hi

Has anyone investigated what it will cost us if we decide to stay at this late hour?? I suspect that it could cost us more than if we walk away?.

Just thinking...

Cheers

Mike

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: j0_77
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 11:19 AM

Well MikeL2 since #LyingNigelFartage with his nasty filthy mouth peed off mostly everybody in the EU, they are unlikely to want the UK back in. And that is quite a shame. How could one POS get away with what he did/still does, while most people in the UK are neutral towards it?

Then there is the #LyingUKIP and its minions to consider. On Quora Russian trolls pretend to be those and continue the nastiness with more new lies.

When I reflect on the needless murder of MP Cox, I think it best the UK and the EU to part ways in order that #LyingNigelFartage gets what's coming to him. A more despicable dirt bag there isn't this side of hell.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 11:28 AM

Then of course the the cost of cleaning the egg of the faces of the Brexiteers!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 01:36 PM

Correction: lowest level THIS year. I misread a headline. Sorry!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 01:45 PM

There's a bit of a difference between deciding to stay in at this late stage (very desirable and a solution the EU would be certain to happily embrace) and trying to get back in once we're out. For a start it would take years, if not decades, of bureaucratic wrangling and extremely divisive domestic politics. Second, the UK would have rapidly become severely damaged goods by dint of our disastrous exit and would be a far less attractive addition. The new Greece. In other words, once we're out, we're out.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 03:10 PM

MikeL re your post

"Has anyone investigated what it will cost us if we decide to stay at this late hour?? I suspect that it could cost us more than if we walk away?."

This is the first time I have heard this mentioned and to be honest not something I had considered.

I am curious to know why you think this situation may arise.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 04:17 PM

So, now it seems that Russia funded the LeaveEU campaign.

Russian deal offered to Arron Banks in Brexit run-up

Happy with that chaps? Or we going see spin the likes of which has not been seen before?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 04:19 PM

Why would it cost us anything if we ditched brexit right now? Everybody would be happy, we wouldn't have to pay the forty billion, there'd be no fines to pay... OK, all that backslapping and the consequent redness of skin could mean increased expenditure on pots of E45...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 02:06 AM

Everybody would be happy, Steve? You may be forgetting one or two people, there.

Joking aside, I think the biggest costs would be due to civil unrest, financially and more important politically.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 05:20 AM

Why would it cost us anything if we ditched brexit right now? Everybody would be happy, we wouldn't have to pay the forty billion, there'd be no fines to pay... OK, all that backslapping and the consequent redness of skin could mean increased expenditure on pots of E45...

But then we wouldn't be paying the 40 billion to EU, instead we would be bankrolling it (or a large part of it) for evermore.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 05:46 AM

" we would be bankrolling it "
We certainly wouldn't be using it to replace our lost industries necessery for our "standing on our own two feet"
There is no plan whatever to forge a new Britain, just a scrabble around to find who were will depend on next
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 06:16 AM

Interesting piece of information from this morning’s Iris Times
Bexit at any price eh?
Jim Carroll

UK URGED GOVERNMENT NOT TO FOCUS ON BREXIT RISK TO PEACE
London asked Dublin to reduce emphasis on potential threat to Belfast Agreement
Request came in meeting between figures from the two governments
FIACH KELLY
Deputy Political Editor

The British government asked Ireland to ease off on its emphasis on peace in Northern Ireland as one of the main issues at stake in the Brexit talks.
The request, from representatives of the UK administration, was made in recent months because British prime minister Theresa May was said to be hurt and concerned her credentials as a guarantor of the Belfast Agreement were not being taken seriously, sources disclosed.
However, Dublin did not accede to the call because of a view that the peace process should remain central to the Brexit negotiations.
The revelation comes as Ms May steps up preparations for the UK leaving the bloc without a deal. She is reported to have instructed her officials to make contingencies in such a scenario to ensure the Border is free of customs checks and police.
It is understood the request came in meetings between figures from the Irish and UK governments as Ms May was preparing to secure the backing of her Cabinet for her vision of a future relationship with the European Union after Brexit.

PREFERRED RELATIONSHIP
The UK government published its White Paper on its preferred future relationship last month, which set out a common customs area between the EU and UK, as well as Britain remaining aligned to the European single market for goods.
However, its key measures have been met with opposition from the EU. Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, has also said that
the integrity of the EU single market - and the accompanying commitment to the free movement of goods, services, people and capital - must be respected.
On the message from the British government on the emphasis on peace and the Irish Border, a source said: “Successive Irish and British governments have protected a hard-won peace in Northern Ireland and we need to make sure that continues, regardless of Brexit.” This includes a need for no hard border.
Another Dublin figure said the UK government felt that the peace process and Irish Border were being seen as mostly of concern to “nationalists, Dublin and the EU”, but were equally a concern of unionists and Ms May’s minority Conservative administration, which has a confidence-and-supply agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).
Stepping up preparations
In a letter to members of the Conservative Party in recent days, Ms May said she “remained clear that no deal is better than a bad deal - and we are stepping up our ‘no deal’ preparations”.
Among her commitments, Ms May said: “There will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. We will remain one United Kingdom with a single internal market.”
She said the two options on offer from the EU - a “standard” free trade agreement “with Northern Ireland staying in the customs union and parts of the single market” or UK membership of the customs union and. single market - are “unacceptable”.
The wording of the so-called backstop arrangement - which would guarantee no hard border even in a no deal Brexit scenario - is one of the main sticking points in EU-UK talks, which Ms May said have reached an “im-passe”.
The EU has said that without a backstop, there can be no withdrawal agreement.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 06:42 AM

An interesting article on the BBC webpages today showing how the Brexit vote varied between the differing age groups. Well worth a read.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45098550

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 09:17 AM

So Nigel thinks that there's a forty billion pot sitting around waiting to be reallocated when we crash out in economic disarray. Well I really have heard it all now.

DMcG, I really do think that most leavers would be, if not deliriously happy, deliriously secretly relieved if brexit failed to happen, but they'd never admit it, of course. They know deep down how bad things are going to be. All they currently have is Project Pie-In-The-Sky. We're going to reach a point in the next few months at which we'll be able to conclude that only the truly insane still support brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 09:47 AM

What really irks me about Nigel's position, and that of similar people, is his use of "we". By "we" he means British people, all British people, and no other people. But this is a wholly artificial grouping. No possible "we" includes both me and Nigel. I pay money in taxes, and some is reallocated by the UK government, and a much smaller amount goes to the EU. The EU allocates a far higher proportion to people I have an affinity with than the UK government. And those people have various nationalities, the thing they have in common with me is that they have, or they aspire to, an education. Nationality doesn't come into it. In my view people should be able to choose their own nationalities on the basis of shared values.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 09:52 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 09:17 AM

So Nigel thinks that there's a forty billion pot sitting around waiting to be reallocated when we crash out in economic disarray. Well I really have heard it all now.

No, I didn't say that. I only stated that we wouldn't be paying out forty billion pounds, but we would pay much more due to our continued membership, if we do not leave.

My response was to a comment (which I quoted) about the results if we ditched Brexit (so NOT crashing out).

Please try to read what I say before giving your own totally misconstrued view of it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 09:59 AM

Surely, now the implications of Brexit have now becom obvious, it would be the democratic thing to ask the minority of the population to ask to vote again thereby not only giving them a chance to decide whether they had made a mistake, but possibly encouraging those who didn't vote to decide whether they would like a second chance to do so.
That way, the Brexiteers really could claim that this is the will of the people rather than dragging a dead horse over the finishing line
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 10:11 AM

The Brexiters would never agree to another vote because, as I pointed out elsewhere, they're bricking it that, now everyone can see the complete donkey's breakfast that the government are making of the negotiations, they'd lose. For god's sake, they don't even like parliament being given debate and a vote!

When the Cowardly Bullingdon Boy abandoned his responsibilities and ran away, and was replaced by Theresa May - a leading member of the Remain campaign - I told my wife that I didn't believe Brexit would ever happen, that she would engineer a situation whereby we would remain in the EU. The closer and closer we get to 29/3/19, the more I think my prediction could come true.

Please God, make it happen and save us from The Insanity.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 12:22 PM

Er, Nigel, you said that we'd be able to bankroll the forty billion, etc. That does appear to assume that the forty billion pot is actually there to bankroll. You appear to have misconstrued your own post. :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 12:38 PM

No, we would continue bankrolling the EU. The 'it' referred to the EU.
Maybe I should have said "EU" instead of "it", but I thought the context would make that clear.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 01:28 PM

Oh well.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 01:32 PM

"No, we would continue bankrolling the EU. The 'it' referred to the EU."
If leaving, with all its pitfalls, was something that was fit for the electorate to decide, why shouldn't "bankrolling the E.U." be equally a voting matter
Maybe you are afraid that that is not the way the electorate will see it?
It seems to me that you now want to decide on behalf of the people
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 02:20 PM

I am bankrolling Trident, HS2, the damned military adventures abroad that politicians of all stripes seem to keen on. Where is my referendum on that?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 03:08 PM

scotland is in the same as yersel' david. forced to pay for things they never vote for. hopefully, they will soon have a chance to absent themselves from the madness of tory rule. unless we move, we don't have that opportunity

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 07:08 PM

And Saudi are bankrolling us by buying our fighter jets by the dozen. Unfortunately, that trade doesn't civilise them into not chopping off people's heads by the hundred per annum in public squares, or bombing the living shite out of Yemeni civilians. Oh, and a couple of dozen kids were legit targets because those damn rebels "used them as human shields..." Yes, we know how to bankroll all the wrong things. Whatever we bankroll in the EU is chicken feed in comparison, and at least it does some good...