RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:Liam Fox in the USA laying the groundwork for lower standards/consumer rights post Brexit. And it might be one thing to bend over for the land of the obese and the chance to import the food that keeps them all so healthy, but god knows what China and India will ask for.

Yup. It will also price many British farmers out of business, unless the government is going to subsidise them.

Hopefully the return from our perspective will be worth it.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Liam Fox in the USA laying the groundwork for lower standards/consumer rights post Brexit. And it might be one thing to bend over for the land of the obese and the chance to import the food that keeps them all so healthy, but god knows what China and India will ask for.

Yup. It will also price many British farmers out of business, unless the government is going to subsidise them.

Hopefully the return from our perspective will be worth it.

Depends what form our new support for the countryside takes, and how it stacks up against the amount currently received via CAP. I've been of the opinion for a long time we can't possibly compete on price in a global market so what's the point trying to, and that farming assistance should shift in no small measure to custodial aims rather than food production.

Outstanding to see James Dyson who campaigned for Brexit, and even a hardline version, and has stated no deal is better than a bad deal is now commenting that farming subsidies should be maintained post Brexit, and further whilst he's noted the UK will on the back of no deal have to live with WTO rules (something he's commented as likely) when it comes to his farm business he's now saying having to trade with tariffs would be a bit of a kick in the teeth.

As probably the UK's biggest farmer, by size of land owned, James is entirely neutral in his new positions other than he seems to at least in part now disagree with himself.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40772332

Today is the deadline for European cities to it forward their proposals to host the 2 Eu agencies hosted by London.

Apparently, along with the 1000ish jobs in London the European banking and medicine authorities currently command, there are 40,000 hotel nights in London each year associated with their work.

canta_brian wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40772332

Today is the deadline for European cities to it forward their proposals to host the 2 Eu agencies hosted by London.

Apparently, along with the 1000ish jobs in London the European banking and medicine authorities currently command, there are 40,000 hotel nights in London each year associated with their work.

These sort of things do happen from time to time anyway, and too such work is funded out of EU contributions and in future we can simply spend that chunk of money we used to send to the EU on similar in the UK, if we want. So it's not a good news story for us, but this isn't perhaps much of anything either.

The bureaucracy required for Britain post Brexit will probably compensate for the individual loss of work/ services provided.

However, will our economy manage the shock and will it be worth it in the end? I voted Remain as I didn't think the eventual sunny upland was all that sunny and would be worth the pain in getting there. Looking at the complete disagreement within both main parties on how to handle this, and with the clock ticking, my confidence in Brexit being managed in the least painful way possible is much reduced.

canta_brian wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40772332

Today is the deadline for European cities to it forward their proposals to host the 2 Eu agencies hosted by London.

Apparently, along with the 1000ish jobs in London the European banking and medicine authorities currently command, there are 40,000 hotel nights in London each year associated with their work.

woo cheaper trips to London

Zhivago wrote:

canta_brian wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40772332

Today is the deadline for European cities to it forward their proposals to host the 2 Eu agencies hosted by London.

Apparently, along with the 1000ish jobs in London the European banking and medicine authorities currently command, there are 40,000 hotel nights in London each year associated with their work.

woo cheaper trips to London

Anyone not earning pounds is already on a win from that point if view

canta_brian wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

canta_brian wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40772332

Today is the deadline for European cities to it forward their proposals to host the 2 Eu agencies hosted by London.

Apparently, along with the 1000ish jobs in London the European banking and medicine authorities currently command, there are 40,000 hotel nights in London each year associated with their work.

woo cheaper trips to London

Anyone not earning pounds is already on a win from that point if view

Unless they have savings in pounds too...

UK Government is already moving to confirm that to take on work previously handled within the EU there'll be many, many new quangos set up, hardly a surprise. Though it'll end the supposed cull on quangos, indeed it'll make the cull look a waste of time as spending in this area explodes once more.

(and there is a need for quangos in our current system, even if some are run badly/jobs for the boys)

In what looks a rather bonkers last minute rush job we're asking for a temporary customs union that allows business as usual, whilst also allowing Britain to be free of many of the requirements of the union. I just can't see how that gets a yes, even if it gets a yes from the EU you'd have to doubt it'll get all 27 nations to vote yes.

And really the Brexiters either need to be happy to leave, or perhaps admit there actually is a problem here

It's almost as if they have just noticed that there may be some downsides in leaving the EU.

Have the brexit negotiators achieved anything as yet? Has anything at all been agreed? The clock is ticking.

I think the closest they've come to an agreement is that they all wish someone else had been given the job

It's basically taken a year to get nowhere, and crucially with that nobody wanting to or thinking about investing knows what the picture is. And now we're simply getting well lets see if we can continue as we are for a while, and it's just not good enough.

Whether this would by now have been clearer had the leave campaign actually supplied any detail on what they wanted to actually do I don't know, certainly they campaigned on rhetoric rather than detail, and that's part of their problem now, they don't have the detail and they don't even agree on the outline of what should be covered.

I shudder to think how much we've spent on this so far to get nowhere

Digby wrote:It's basically taken a year to get nowhere, and crucially with that nobody wanting to or thinking about investing knows what the picture is. And now we're simply getting well lets see if we can continue as we are for a while, and it's just not good enough.

Whether this would by now have been clearer had the leave campaign actually supplied any detail on what they wanted to actually do I don't know, certainly they campaigned on rhetoric rather than detail, and that's part of their problem now, they don't have the detail and they don't even agree on the outline of what should be covered.

I shudder to think how much we've spent on this so far to get nowhere

Actually it has taken 5 months to get nowhere as nothing could actaully be done until Article 50 was activated (which is what the
EU kept telling us) which wasn't done until March this year.

belgarion wrote:

Digby wrote:It's basically taken a year to get nowhere, and crucially with that nobody wanting to or thinking about investing knows what the picture is. And now we're simply getting well lets see if we can continue as we are for a while, and it's just not good enough.

Whether this would by now have been clearer had the leave campaign actually supplied any detail on what they wanted to actually do I don't know, certainly they campaigned on rhetoric rather than detail, and that's part of their problem now, they don't have the detail and they don't even agree on the outline of what should be covered.

I shudder to think how much we've spent on this so far to get nowhere

Actually it has taken 5 months to get nowhere as nothing could actaully be done until Article 50 was activated (which is what the
EU kept telling us) which wasn't done until March this year.

I was going to type something longer, but in essence, what utter bollocks.

belgarion wrote:

Digby wrote:It's basically taken a year to get nowhere, and crucially with that nobody wanting to or thinking about investing knows what the picture is. And now we're simply getting well lets see if we can continue as we are for a while, and it's just not good enough.

Whether this would by now have been clearer had the leave campaign actually supplied any detail on what they wanted to actually do I don't know, certainly they campaigned on rhetoric rather than detail, and that's part of their problem now, they don't have the detail and they don't even agree on the outline of what should be covered.

I shudder to think how much we've spent on this so far to get nowhere

Actually it has taken 5 months to get nowhere as nothing could actaully be done until Article 50 was activated (which is what the
EU kept telling us) which wasn't done until March this year.

One might have thought that in the year some the referendum the Brexiteers might have developed some idea of what their negotiation position was. Article 50 has nothing to do with the failure to do that.

And again we come back to a badly planned referendum which didn't actually give clear direction on the type of brexit the country wanted.

Sandydragon wrote:And again we come back to a badly planned referendum which didn't actually give clear direction on the type of brexit the country wanted.

A magic one that maintains trade as is with Europe, frees us of any obligations, gives us access to other markets around the world on a faster and more favourable basis than than the EU would achieve, will reduce migration, reduce house prices for kids/first time buyers clearing out all the migrants, but will not drop house values for the middle classes, will not impact our ability to meet public service and pension provisions, frees up cash even, will make our military stronger, will make our grass greener whilst also seeing more sunshine.... I don't think anyone voted to restore the empire, but you never know.

The campaign was about rhetoric, the reality is about annoying detail.

I think any future referendums should be based in a specific plan. I had the same misgivings about the Scottish indyref, people don't really know what they are voting for, other than something different. At least in fairness, the SNP did publish a white paper, even if they were representative of all th Indy parties and it was largely fantasy.

The brexit referendum was just a bunch of sound bytes. The referendum was planned by someone who didn't believe that he would lose and thus didn't take it that seriously.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:And again we come back to a badly planned referendum which didn't actually give clear direction on the type of brexit the country wanted.

A magic one that maintains trade as is with Europe, frees us of any obligations, gives us access to other markets around the world on a faster and more favourable basis than than the EU would achieve, will reduce migration, reduce house prices for kids/first time buyers clearing out all the migrants, but will not drop house values for the middle classes, will not impact our ability to meet public service and pension provisions, frees up cash even, will make our military stronger, will make our grass greener whilst also seeing more sunshine.... I don't think anyone voted to restore the empire, but you never know.

The campaign was about rhetoric, the reality is about annoying detail.

The campaign was about some overly privileged public schoolboys playing fun political games with people's lives and then running away in the hope everyone would forget.
If you've got squillions of Daddies money in your bank account, tax-payer funded private healthcare for life and a huge pension pot.......the lives and travails of ordinary folk must seem pretty dull.

kk67 wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:And again we come back to a badly planned referendum which didn't actually give clear direction on the type of brexit the country wanted.

A magic one that maintains trade as is with Europe, frees us of any obligations, gives us access to other markets around the world on a faster and more favourable basis than than the EU would achieve, will reduce migration, reduce house prices for kids/first time buyers clearing out all the migrants, but will not drop house values for the middle classes, will not impact our ability to meet public service and pension provisions, frees up cash even, will make our military stronger, will make our grass greener whilst also seeing more sunshine.... I don't think anyone voted to restore the empire, but you never know.

The campaign was about rhetoric, the reality is about annoying detail.

The campaign was about some overly privileged public schoolboys playing fun political games with people's lives and then running away in the hope everyone would forget.
If you've got squillions of Daddies money in your bank account, tax-payer funded private healthcare for life and a huge pension pot.......the lives and travails of ordinary folk must seem pretty dull.

Some were public schoolboys sure, though Blair, Osborne, Clegg, Cameron and so on were rather on the leave side. And I don't know Corbyn isn't public school though I'd have my doubts, and by him going AWOL ('cause he wanted out of the EU in order to nationalise UK firms) without any sensible comment we can't blame the situation on public school types, though. We probably could say that whilst in the main educated people voted to remain there was a higher drive to leave from those of a public school background, but that's about it.

The campaign was more about thick and angry people, and typically less educated, though it was about people like Farage too, and Farage had an education even if he is thick and angry

Can we meet in the middle and say it was thick, angry uneducated people with everything to lose being blindly led by thick, angry educated people with nothing to lose...?.

kk67 wrote:Can we meet in the middle and say it was thick, angry uneducated people with everything to lose being blindly led by thick, angry educated people with nothing to lose...?.

We're partway into a Bill Hicks sketch

..or the rise of Cromwell.