Brexit #2

Subject: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 10:36 AM

OK Can we now have a discussion about Brexit without personal attacks, without name calling and one that sticks to the topic, without deviation or picking up on spelling or perceptions of the use of words.

We are all supposed to be adult and have a modicum of intelligence, hopefully that will remain to be the case.

In todays Guardian Jeremy Hunt, the Home Secretary, has suggested that the possibility of a "no deal situation" outcome is growing by the day. He suggested that this "is a huge geo-strategic mistake".

Could someone kindly provide a link to the article.

PS I will ask the Moderators to delete any post that contains even a slight personal attacks on anybody no matter which side they support.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 10:48 AM

Foreign secretary surely Raggy?

Anyway, as I kept saying elsewhere, we all know what people mean so it doesn't really matter ;-)

Here you go.

D.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: JP2
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 10:57 AM

Completely agree Nick,but,and it's a big but,I'm not holding my breath!

I voted to remain in 1974 and the same again last time and nothing that I've heard in the last two years about leaving has made me sanguine about the future.

I've always taken the view that if the European Adventure has done nothing else it has meant that nobody in my family has been forced to put on a uniform,pick up a gun and fight in a European war since 1945.

There,I did that without being rude or offensive to anyone!!

JP2.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 11:02 AM

I concur - this is potentially the most far reaching event in UK and Europe for decades which could have an impact on more than half a billion peoples lives, and a greater impact on over 60 million lives in the UK, and when we hear, now almost on a daily basis, potential problems - the latest being continuation of an open skies and aviation safety deal if the UK refuses to recognise the ECJ as an overarching regulator. I will continue to voice my concerns on these matters and say why I am concerned, and respect the right of those who hold opposing views to explain why there is no cause for concern. Also I respect the right of some to say that they are not bothered about how things may impact on other peoples lives, as long as they are honest enough to say they don't care less and own that view rather than profess to be speaking on behalf of the UK electorate, and comments like 'they are only saying that because they want to remain, are traitors, it is all fake news is singularly unhelpful in progressing the debate and providing the reassurances that people are looking for.

So yes, lets ask the questions that need to be answered, lets hear both sides opinions about what is likely to happen, and why they think that, lets try to avoid thread drift into endlessly repeating polarised views on sub-topics, and above all, not engage in insulting language directed at other mudcatters (though I would suggest that politicians could be fair game).

Anyway, that is my two-pennorthworth of ground rules.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 11:30 AM

SPB: What is this problem with 'open skies and aviation safety'?
Where can I read about it to see whether you viewpoint is valid?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 11:40 AM

In todays Guardian Jeremy Hunt, the Home Secretary, has suggested that the possibility of a "no deal situation" outcome is growing by the day. He suggested that this "is a huge geo-strategic mistake".

In today's Express "THE EUROPEAN Union is finally accepting Brussels needs to “fudge” crucial Brexit negotiations and offer the UK a vague blueprint for future ties with the bloc as tensions surrounding the divorce deal increase."
The Daily Wail:Just 5,000 jobs are expected to go in the City because of Brexit - despite earlier forecasts of 200,000 cuts

So who to believe?

So far all we are getting is progressively more hysterical exaggerations from both sides, in a world where nothing is agreed until all is agreed.
A lot of posturing and nonsense from both sides I suspect.
With no deal, both sides end up losers. Every upside has a downdside.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 11:50 AM

Iains, I think we all understand that the discussion has two sides.

What I and other people have asked for is some indication of what good bits the UK can expect. To date almost every single report I have read has been in the negative.

I honestly would like to believe that some good could result of us leaving the EU but to date I have seen none.

Therein lies the fundemental problem.

And now we have a situation where a senior member of the cabinet is clearly expressing his concerns.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 11:59 AM

DMcG,
So far all we are getting is progressively more hysterical exaggerations from both sides,

There has been no hysterical exaggeration from Leave side.

Rag,
To date almost every single report I have read has been in the negative.

That is because Guardian only prints negative reports, and you only read the Guardian.

The problem here is that Remainers worry about everything and believe every scare story, while Leavers only worry that Brexit will not not be delivered because the establishment is trying to subvert the process.

That is the whole discussion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 12:04 PM

Raggy I suspect how a person voted was driven by their perception of what the EU was morphing into, today, tomorrow, 5,10,20 years down the road. No matter how much TPTB dodge the issue, I feel it is all about destroying the nation state, constucting a US of Europe with all power financial, economic and planning being tighly grasped by centrists.
This is not the world signed up for in 1973. The Bilderbergs and globalists of the world may embrace the idea. I do not and never will.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 12:11 PM

Keith you do not know which newspapers or other media sources I access.

I link to the Guardian because, in the main, it echoes my own opinions which I arrive at after having read many sources.

You have now posted twice with attacks upon people who favour the remain site and have not, as yet addressed the subject.

If you continue to do so, I will have no other option than to ask the moderators to delete your posts.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 12:17 PM

Iains, I can understand your concerns in that regard, however, whether you or I like the fact, the world is changing and the ideals that you and I held thirty, forty, or fifty years ago are history.

We have to deal with the now, and we have to deal with the future and the ever growing globalisation of the world.

The fundemental question is whether to be a part of a big organisation or be a very little fish in a very big pond, and as you and I both know little fish invariably get eaten.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 12:36 PM

Whether Jeremy Hunt is a reliable source of not be is still a senior member of the cabinet. If senior members of the cabinet, who have access to information we are denied, are voicing concerns, then I think it is a worry.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 12:45 PM

Why was a quote made by Iains put in my name?
This thread is an attempt to keep things civil and calm. Misattributions don't help.

On the other thread I attempted for quite a while to distinguish between Leavers and Brexiteers, though in the end I gave up. A leaver may well have voted to leave as a matter of balance: some who voted remain or leave will not have finally decided until they had the pencil on their hand. Others will have mixed feelings, liking some of the leave arguments but not others. Only a comparatively small number are likely to have been leave at any cost Brexiteers. Equally, remainers also cover a spectrum of views. Can I then suggest we try to avoid terms like Brexiteer except for those towards the very end of the spectrum?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 01:26 PM

Whether Jeremy Hunt is a reliable source of not be is still a senior member of the cabinet.

But the problem with both he and many other mp's is, are they for or against Brexit? Their party colours ain't necessarily their batting colours. This adds further complexity in trying to puzzle out who and what can be believed or nor believed. How many MPs are trying to forward Brexit, and how many to frustrate it.

Is May a passionate Leaver or a traitor? The jury has largely made it's mind (in my case)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 01:40 PM

Rag,
Keith you do not know which newspapers or other media sources I access.

I have read all your posts on this and you have only ever linked to or quoted Guardian articles.
If you had read any Leave papers how could you claim, "To date almost every single report I have read has been in the negative."

You have now posted twice with attacks upon people who favour the remain site and have not, as yet addressed the subject.

I have not. I have only disagreed with them.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 01:42 PM

I don't think many politicians could be trusted with the TV remote let alone the country but the fact still remains that they are privy to information we do not get and have a host of people qualified to advise them. Yes, he will have an agenda. So do those who want a hard brexit, including the media barons who are using their power to convince people to let them use the UK as a tax haven.

Who do we believe? Jeremy Hunt? Nigel Farage? Rupert Murdoch? None of of them?

Up to you.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 01:47 PM

It is quite simple for anyone wishing to prove that there is as many reports for leave as there is against. Post links to them. Over and over again we have asked for any positive forecasts and over and over again the silence has been deafening.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 01:59 PM


Is May a passionate Leaver or a traitor? 
I think there are quite a few other possibilities than those.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 02:03 PM

But those other possibilities encompass a lukewarm brexit. i.e. All the shackles and no place at the top table. Rather a silly place to end up!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 02:15 PM

It is quite simple for anyone wishing to prove that there is as many reports for leave as there is against. Post links to them

All the reports you have linked to have been opinion pieces from pro-Remain papers.
Doing that is not discussion.
Do you really doubt that the Leave press does not carry such pieces?
They do every day, but it is not discussion to just copy or link to the opinions of others.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 02:31 PM

What Hunt actually said,
"Britain will prosper and succeed whatever the outcomes of these talks because we are that kind of country."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45033344

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 03:06 PM

If he said that last bit Keith he is wrong. And he seemed to be blaming the EU negotiators for being inflexible, and asking France and Germany to lean on them, when he would be better served leaning on his own party leader to face down Rees Mogg and his brownshirts, and to relax the red lines that she has drawn.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 03:12 PM

well, that's alright then, cheers jeremy . i was getting a bit worried for a while. in all the 1,000s of posts in another place i have seen many comments on trade prospects and intricate details of various opinions on most aspects of the problem, but it's the human aspect that most concerns me. on a personal scale i have 2 children in estonia and italy with no idea of how things will turn out (and another 3 who are also furious about this brexit thing) at a national level there seems to be very little concern about insulting our neighbours and disregarding the peace that's been maintained for decades. in these troubled times - surely this can't be the time to walk away from this. and how can we be so uncornerned about the loss of our rights? i'm hoping we will avoid some of the more scary predictions but a lot of damage has already been done and peoples' lives needlessly messed about.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 03:22 PM

The implication is that if May is not a "passionate leaver" she must be a traitor, DMcG. Difficult to address such invective without going beyond the spirit requested but I shall try.

I agree, there are plenty other options and somewhere amongst them will be a number of sensible ones. Trouble is, they will all involve compromise and that will be seen by some as either weakness or treason. I don't know how to fix that but, surprisingly, I do wish May, Hunt and co every success with finding that compromise. If it involves retaining at least some of the benefits of being in the EU, it will be good for us all. Unfortunately, while some are prepared to accept compromise, the more vociferous leave supporters only seem to be interested in throwing out the baby with the bath water.

In my opinion of course.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 06:03 PM

Any views of the result of a survey which suggests that Brexit with cost the British People £800 per person?
Maybe it isn't important to those who can afford it !!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 06:06 PM

THERE YOU GO

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 06:28 PM

Jim, As I have already posted prior to today, I have seen my food bill, my utlitity bills and my fuel costs rise over and above the rate of inflation. (which while not ideal is the normal state of affairs.)

I am in the fortunate position that to date I have been able to absorb these.

However, I also know many people who are now struggling because of these additional costs.

For example my food bill in the past two years has increased by around 17-18%. It is not that our diet has changed but that imports have risen in price due in no small part to the fall in the value of Sterling.

I cannot foresee that our leaving the EU will address this problem and no-one has as yet submitted any article or news report that counters my increasing fears.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 07:25 PM

I cannot foresee that our leaving the EU will address this problem and no-one has as yet submitted any article or news report that counters my increasing fears.
I thought I had submitted something in the previous discussion. But as you haven't seen it, here is another:
how we could see lower prices after Brexit

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 01:58 AM

I have said before that I think Leavers put too much focus on tariffs, without looking at the wider ramifications. While that article does consider the CAP for example, tariffs are still a central theme.

The home-grown food has always relied heavily on cheap, seasonal labour. It is not an EU thing - it long preceded it. The changes to mobility look likely - nothing is certain yet - to reduce that. So the local growers either have to find an alternative source of cheap, efficient labour (no price change), or pay the pickers more (increased price), or as is happening in some places, pick less(increased prices through scarcity).

So even if tariffs come down the effects on prices will be complex: some will go up, some down. That is made more complicated because we eat foods in different amounts, so for one individual the prices of what they currently eat will go up, and another down. Then there is a third effect: especially for the poorest what they eat will change to seek out the cheapest foods, so they might see a reduction in price.

End of story? No. In the article it mentions a few example high tariff foods, and one is sugar at 33%. And we know that cheap food is often high fat and high sugar. This runs the risk - not certain, but an increased risk - that sugar consumption will rise. Which impacts obesity. Which impacts diabetes and other health risks and so the NHS costs. Which in its turn puts pressure on taxation and/or how taxes are allocated.

The real world is a complex, inter-related web. Change one bit and the ramifications spread far and wide. It cannot easily be represented adequately by a tariff rate.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 02:27 AM

Nigel
Your link is based on so-called "European protectionism" - yet Brexit is based on an extreme form of just that - isolationism, euphmised as "standing on our own two feet".
Britain hasn't got feet any more - it no longer has an industrial base so has nothing to export and is incapable of producing goods to become delf sustainable
Agriculture at home is in severe decline
FROM ONE OF YOUR OWN
We are going to be at the mercy of the most protectionist, isolationist and most self-serving nation on the Planet - you have put us in hock to Trump's America
I was mildly amused when I spotted the headline next to your article reading "If only we had a leader like Trump" - sums up the whole farce really
Far from having an plan of how Britain is "going to stand on its own two feet", so far it has been unable to devise one on how we are going to leave Europe in 8 months time yet.
It seems this decision has no only naused up the lives of the present generation but has also placed a huge shadow of theod of the next one
And you still wave your little Union Jacks and sing rule Britannia
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 03:09 AM

If he said that last bit Keith he is wrong. And he seemed to be blaming the EU negotiators for being inflexible

He did. I have never had much confidence in the man, but as Dave said, "Whether Jeremy Hunt is a reliable source or not he is still a senior member of the cabinet. If senior members of the cabinet, who have access to information we are denied....."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 04:12 AM

Hunt may be a senior member of cabinet, but that doesn't make him a judge of what kind of a country Britain is. Indeed the very concept of a country being a certain kind of country is meaningless. People are certain kinds of people. And people change.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 04:21 AM

ok. how do people think brexit will impact on our disastrously depleted local services? a few years back the EU wanted to commit 22 million euros to support our food banks. the government blocked this money as not appropriate.

at present 40% of EU spending goes on agricultural subsidies. our farmers are having a terrible time with drought and worries about how brexit will affect their trade and their subsidies.

as the current government is committed to huge cuts in public expenditure - what hope for farmers after brexit?

there are very many things in our country that are badly in need of spending and a fresh approach away from privatisation and cost cutting. what fresh initiatives can we expect for social policy once EU subsidies have been removed?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 04:29 AM

what fresh initiatives can we expect for social policy once EU subsidies have been removed?

Once EU subsidies have been removed we will have more money to spend not less.
They just give us back a little of our own money and call it a subsidy.
They also decide what it must be spent on. Post Brexit we can decide.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 04:33 AM

" In the article it mentions a few example high tariff foods, and one is sugar at 33%."
FACT
Boosted by the end of sugar quotas in 2017, EU sugar production is estimated to grow significantly for 2017/18. The EU is the largest producer of beet sugar in the world. Sugar prices are expected to drop across the EU. There is no tariff on internal distribution.
Perhaps you meant cane sugar?

"!it no longer has an industrial base so has nothing to export and is incapable of producing goods to become delf sustainable"
FACT
The UK produces 40% of goods imported into Ireland in the agri-food sector
and to name but one sector.
In 2016 the value of UK defence exports was. £5.9 billion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 04:36 AM

As for continued support for farming, promises have already been made. See Farmers Guardian

In a roundtable with farmers and agricultural organisations including the Royal Welsh Agricultural Society, Farmers Union Wales, NFU Cymru and the CLA, the Prime Minister will also reiterate her commitment to maintaining current funding levels until the end of this Parliament to ensure farmers have the certainty they need to plan for their business.

Prime Minister Theresa May said: “This Government is committed to supporting the half a million people who work in agriculture and growing our world leading food and drinks sector, which contributes over £100 billion to the UK economy. But we also need to protect the farmed environment for future generations.

“Leaving the EU presents us with a unique opportunity to transform our food, farming and environmental policies so we can have a healthy and prosperous agricultural industry that is fit for the future, and helps us to leave the environment in a better place than we found it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 04:43 AM

nigel - 'promises have already been made' - does that really reassure you these days? how about 'i am not going to call another general election' 'windrush generation are british citizens' 'if scotland wants to remain a member of the EU it must vote no to independence' etc etc etc etc....

really, if you were ...say, a cumbrian hill farmer would you feel safe?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 04:49 AM

Promises made by a tory are not worth the paper they are written on, even if its used bog paper.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:03 AM

Anyone I've talked to who is passionately pro-Brexit, and who voted for Brexit, did so for one main reason: "Too many immigrants".

But the immigrants into the UK they objected to were mostly from Britain's former colonies in the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East and Africa. Brown people, like. Brexit won't stop this immigration.

To me it seems a reckless action to leave a strong trading bloc. The UK's politicians are trying to convince their voters that they can bully this trading bloc into giving the UK a privileged trading position even after it leaves the bloc, an idea that seems pretty much away-with-the-fairies.

By the way, does the UK actually produce 40% of agrifoods imported into Ireland, or is it that the UK is used for shipping these goods to Ireland?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:11 AM

that sounds like a straightforward and very fair assessment of the situation, thompson. without our fear and mistrust of the 'other' (provoked and encouraged by some very unsavoury and dangerous far-right people and press) and (here, i am entirely guilty) dislike of change, then i'm certain we wouldn't be having this crazy discussion about how best to leave a club that has many benefits for us- not least to encourage peace among nations.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:17 AM

ACT
Boosted by the end of sugar quotas in 2017, EU sugar production is estimated to grow significantly for 2017/18. The EU is the largest producer of beet sugar in the world. Sugar prices are expected to drop across the EU. There is no tariff on internal distribution.
Perhaps you meant cane sugar?

I meant that the article Nigel linked two talked about the tariff on sugar. They may have meant cane sugar, but I made no claim about the type of sugar and nor did they.

I did make a mistake though. They said 31% which I misremembered and put 33%.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:18 AM

Fact, not act. And to, not two. Sorry about those.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:40 AM

Odd, that. Ireland's beet sugar business was shut down by the EU (or by the withdrawal of EU grants supporting it) on the basis that its support was unfair competition with impoverished cane sugar growers. Which seemed fair enough to me; why should we compete with some of the poorest people in the world, who are producing a healthy, high-quality product?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:45 AM

By the way, does the UK actually produce 40% of agrifoods imported into Ireland, or is it that the UK is used for shipping these goods to Ireland?
https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/publications/2018/BrexitFactsheetJan2018290118.pdf

https://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/statisticalpublications/Brexit.pdf    (page 27)(page 32)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:55 AM

Mm. But "produce" is an odd variable. Ireland is the largest producer of bananas in the world (not grown in the well-known banana plantations of Finglas, but packaged and re-exported).

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:58 AM

The story about the Irish sugar beet factory dates back to 2005. The end of EU sugar quotas was last year. 13 years is a long time in politics!

Why the EU deliberately impoverishes third world farmers (as shown in the link below) is a question you would be better off asking them!



https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/oct/11/eu-agriculture-hurts-developing-countries

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 06:00 AM

Not just the EU, also the US - agricultural giants clearing jungles for factory farming and putting small family farms out of business. It's always the way with big biz.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 06:17 AM

no disrespect, iain but quoting a 2011 article about irish sugar beet or whatever sort of typifies the way i'm feeling today. reel back say, 5 years, in your wildest imaginings did you ever think you would be doing such a thing - did any of us imagining we would be following such fabulously obscure (6.000plus) posts?

really, it's crazy, innit? maybe we should all allow ourselves to laugh about it. it's all we have sometimes

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 08:45 AM

"no disrespect, iain but quoting a 2011 article about irish sugar beet"
Actually the thrust of the article was dating from 2005, where the comment was made that " Ireland's beet sugar business was shut down by the EU (or by the withdrawal of EU grants supporting it) on the basis that its support was unfair competition with impoverished cane sugar growers"

But as I pointed out The EU abolished sugar quotas last year. As result this current year has seen bumper crops of beet planted, thereby exacerbating the situation highlighted by the original post. That is why comments need to be given both a context and a date.

" But "produce" is an odd variable. Ireland is the largest producer of bananas in the world (not grown in the well-known banana plantations of Finglas, but packaged and re-exported)."
NAFTA "producer" means a person who grows, mines, harvests, fishes, traps, hunts, manufactures, processes or assembles a good;

To define the redistribution and repackaging of bananas as   production is perhaps a stretch too far.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 09:21 AM

From the Central Statistics Office figures for last year:

The EU accounted for €5,472 million (56%) of total goods exports in December 2017, of which €1,621 million went to Belgium and €1,131 million to Great Britain.

The EU accounted for €4,038 (63%) of the value of goods imports in December 2017, with €1,562 million (24%) of total imports coming from Great Britain.

The thing about goods being identified as coming from a specific country is that "added value" often means goods are described as belonging to a particular country, so that if, for instance, broad beans are flash frozen in Spain but then packaged for sale in Britain, they may legitimately (if not quite honestly) be described as "British", and ditto for other countries.

It will of course be necessary for the fruit, vegetables, cheese, meat, etc imported to Ireland from Europe to come via France or the Netherlands rather than through the UK after Brexit, because otherwise these imports would be hit by two lots of tariffs - one to bring them into the UK from Europe, the second to reimport them into Ireland (ie Europe again) from the UK.