The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[blandy]

8 hours ago, Awol said:

So a collection of MPs conjure up their worst fears about what a US-UK FTA could include, that is then packaged up and presented as news.

There's two seperate things in that sentence.

Firstly there's the matter of food hygiene and safety standards. Currently the UK (as part of the EU) has more stringent food safety standards than the US. It seems entirely reasonable to want to know, for MPs to want to hold the Gov't to account with regard to potential downgrading of hygiene standards applicable in the UK - there's a definite public health interest, as well as a safety at work interest and animal welfare interest in how farm animals are treated, transported and so on. So, to me it's not a matter of "conjuring up worst fears" - it's a very valid question. It's also newsworthy because of all those things.

The second thing, the far less significant comment, is about how media present information, and it's true that all the news media sites/papers, bar maybe the FT, present stuff in a way influenced by the success of the Daily Mail - scare story headlines to grab people's attention. It's distorting and probably causes cancer due to all the illegal immigrants coming over here and making up our headlines out of their muslimist fundamentalism despite having their own smartphones and looking older than 16.

[Chindie]

8 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

fail

the OP was a daily Mail type harp back to the good old days when everything was regulated  and wont' someone think of the children when we open the doors to unhygienic ways

The horse meat scandal  was a major breakdown in the traceability of the food supply chain , and a major failure of the EU regulations ( HACCP ?)

but then you already knew that didn't you

 

 

by the way hadn't the EU , yes that one , already agreed to the import of chlorinated chicken as part of TTIP (in principle at least )   .. can't imagine how the SNP and the critics missed that 

 

so I see your Ah but and raise you a Hypocrisy

 

I'm curious how you think that's a 'fail'. I said the horsemeat scandal was a failure ('regulatory oversight'?). And even if you reject that, it doesn't change the overarching point, at all.

As for TTIP... Did I miss the EU installing the TTIP regime? A significant element of how the EU works is the need for ratification across the countries. Someone at the top can agree whatever they like, the members can, and did, reject it.

'Fail' indeed.

[Awol]

@blandy Sure, food hygiene is important, no debate about that.

It just seems an odd thing to be focused on (a detail of a potential future trade deal that may be signed two years hence) when the two leaders are still to meet, and may have slightly more pressing issues to discuss.

Y'know, stuff like the future of the post WW2 global order and international system, the western alliance, the EU, things like that.

But the Daily Mail. Always a winning retort.

[tonyh29]

21 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I'm curious how you think that's a 'fail'. I said the horsemeat scandal was a failure ('regulatory oversight'?). And even if you reject that, it doesn't change the overarching point, at all.

As for TTIP... Did I miss the EU installing the TTIP regime? A significant element of how the EU works is the need for ratification across the countries. Someone at the top can agree whatever they like, the members can, and did, reject it.

'Fail' indeed.

yeah they did it the same time as the free trade agreement that people were complaining about that we've agreed

[snowychap]

Corbyn has said it will be a three-line whip for Labour MPs.

[blandy]

29 minutes ago, Awol said:

@blandy Sure, food hygiene is important, no debate about that.

It just seems an odd thing to be focused on (a detail of a potential future trade deal that may be signed two years hence) when the two leaders are still to meet, and may have slightly more pressing issues to discuss.

Y'know, stuff like the future of the post WW2 global order and international system, the western alliance, the EU, things like that.

But the Daily Mail. Always a winning retort.

FT - Food standards is a real here and now issue. May's going over there in part to talk about trade.

Quote

As the word’s biggest services exporters, the US and UK could clash over the treatment of financial services. The US could also demand the UK fall into line on politically sensitive agricultural issues such as genetically modified foods that have long met consumer resistance in the UK and EU.

The American Farm Bureau Federation, the main lobbying group for US farmers, told the FT on Wednesday it would press the UK for the same concessions on tariff cuts and changes in hygiene standards it had failed to get during trade talks with the EU.

Federation officials said they would seek to have Britain authorise the import and sale of chicken sanitised by being dipped in chlorinated water, beef raised with growth hormones and more food produced with genetically-modified organisms.
 

The Daily Mail thing isn't an "Ah But" they were the first and are the most successful in using fear to attract readers. It's been copied by just about everyone since, in a bid to earn revenue - it's not a "retort" - it's an acknowledgement of your point.

[Enda]

20 minutes ago, Awol said:

@blandy Sure, food hygiene is important, no debate about that.

It just seems an odd thing to be focused on (a detail of a potential future trade deal that may be signed two years hence) when the two leaders are still to meet, and may have slightly more pressing issues to discuss.

But this is precisely the sort of issue that arises with trade deals, Awol. The awkward fact that Brexiteers have been far too nonchalant about: it is logically impossible to simultaneously "take back control" of regulations, and have unmitigated free trade. You have either give in on regulations (e.g. let hormone-pumped beef in) or have barriers to trade (not let hormone-pumped beef in). Simple as. You cannot have both.

Debates about whether you can use chlorine to clean chicken, or whether British nurses' qualifications are recognised in Ireland, or whether your car headlamps need to be yellow or white, is exactly what the single market is all about. The single market a set of rules everyone in the EU agrees to so that something produced in England can be sold in France without any worries. "Regulations", "Brussels bureaucracy". How about the necessary compromise to "make trade achievable."

I've been saying this for months. If you want truly free trade with the United States, wave bye-bye to control of your product and labour standards. Wave bye-bye to the single-buyer NHS. Wave bye-bye to subsidies in targeted industries. The Tories' wet dream.

And this is just the US. Can you even begin to imagine how a "free trade deal" with India or China would work out?

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

yeah they did it the same time as the free trade agreement that people were complaining about that we've agreed

What?

And I agree with you about TTIP and lowering food standards in an underhand way etc.. It all got found out about despite the best efforts of EU goblins to keep it all secret.

[chrisp65]

In between trips up and down the motorway yesterday evening I sat in front of the TV and The One Show was on.

First one up, part of their 'panel' on some Brexit vox pop review some female pensioner who's summary of her stance, straight to camera, was: We're losing why we were Great, we used to be Great but there are too many immigrants, we're sinking, sinking because of all the immigrants.

'click' off went the tory BBC

I'm presuming she wasn't hit about with a table leg? Hope I didn't miss anything worthwhile.

Yeah, I watched the One Show. Whilst eating soup.

[tonyh29]

49 minutes ago, blandy said:

What?

 

it wont surprise you to know I was being flippant

I guess awol said it more formally

It just seems an odd thing to be focused on (a detail of a potential future trade deal that may be signed two years hence) when the two leaders are still to meet, and may have slightly more pressing issues to discuss.

 

the OP was all if , buts and maybes and look how bad Brexit is .. and didn't contain any substance of fact , don't think May's even got on the plane yet and yet already the implication was there are container ships of Chlorinated chicken crossing the Atlantic

 

 

[Awol]

1 hour ago, Enda said:

But this is precisely the sort of issue that arises with trade deals, Awol. The awkward fact that Brexiteers have been far too nonchalant about: it is logically impossible to simultaneously "take back control" of regulations, and have unmitigated free trade. You have either give in on regulations (e.g. let hormone-pumped beef in) or have barriers to trade (not let hormone-pumped beef in). Simple as. You cannot have both.

Debates about whether you can use chlorine to clean chicken, or whether British nurses' qualifications are recognised in Ireland, or whether your car headlamps need to be yellow or white, is exactly what the single market is all about. The single market a set of rules everyone in the EU agrees to so that something produced in England can be sold in France without any worries. "Regulations", "Brussels bureaucracy". How about the necessary compromise to "make trade achievable."

I've been saying this for months. If you want truly free trade with the United States, wave bye-bye to control of your product and labour standards. Wave bye-bye to the single-buyer NHS. Wave bye-bye to subsidies in targeted industries. The Tories' wet dream.

And this is just the US. Can you even begin to imagine how a "free trade deal" with India or China would work out?

Yes, I understand the basics of a how a trade deal works. My point (obviously not very well expressed) was there are several larger wolves considerably closer to the sleigh that need to be discussed as a higher priority in their first meeting. Grand strategy stuff that's an order of magnitude more important to cover off as quickly as possible.

Of course the principal of doing a trade deal is still a very important subject, but even then it probably just makes it into the top 5. I'd be amazed if they got down into the detail, not least because that isn't really their job.

 

[Chindie]

1 hour ago, Enda said:

But this is precisely the sort of issue that arises with trade deals, Awol. The awkward fact that Brexiteers have been far too nonchalant about: it is logically impossible to simultaneously "take back control" of regulations, and have unmitigated free trade. You have either give in on regulations (e.g. let hormone-pumped beef in) or have barriers to trade (not let hormone-pumped beef in). Simple as. You cannot have both.

Debates about whether you can use chlorine to clean chicken, or whether British nurses' qualifications are recognised in Ireland, or whether your car headlamps need to be yellow or white, is exactly what the single market is all about. The single market a set of rules everyone in the EU agrees to so that something produced in England can be sold in France without any worries. "Regulations", "Brussels bureaucracy". How about the necessary compromise to "make trade achievable."

I've been saying this for months. If you want truly free trade with the United States, wave bye-bye to control of your product and labour standards. Wave bye-bye to the single-buyer NHS. Wave bye-bye to subsidies in targeted industries. The Tories' wet dream.

And this is just the US. Can you even begin to imagine how a "free trade deal" with India or China would work out?

This is also why the idea of a fast agreement is a fantasy, unless one side lies down and agrees to anything the other wants. The agreement would constitute thousands of different aspects of trade.

And it's why an EU deal will take years, because you have to make all these agreements AND have 27 countries ratify it. You aren't gong to achieve that in a few weeks. That's years of work.

[Xann]

53 minutes ago, blandy said:

...  TTIP and lowering food standards in an underhand way etc.. It all got found out about despite the best efforts of EU goblins to keep it all secret.

For a bonus point.

In the TTIP negotiations, which European nation's government insisted on empowering US corporate interest to the point no one in their right mind in Europe would sign it?

 

 

[Chindie]

The French?

[Xann]

3 minutes ago, Chindie said:

The French?

Close - You're just a Channel away.

[Chindie]

2 minutes ago, Xann said:

Close - You're just a Channel away.

In fairness I completely misread and thought you were getting at who blocked it... Who empowered it is obviously us.

In fairness to TTIP (said noone, ever) it was a 2 way street IIRC. It would allow the empowerment of European corporations as well, hence it not being very popular with some Yanks either. But it still wasn't good.

Presumably May will bend over, and let Donald and his more dangerous negotiator friends dust it off and ram it up our collective arses soon enough though.

[blandy]

23 minutes ago, Xann said:

which European nation's government insisted on empowering US corporate interest to the point no one in their right mind in Europe would sign it?

Um, take back control! We want to be sovereign! no ruddy foriners tellin' us what to do. Bendy bananas innit. Keep 'em all out! British jobs for a Red White and Blue Brexit means brexit! We won, snowflake get over it.

Oh, was it. Damn.

[tonyh29]

37 minutes ago, blandy said:

Um, take back control! We want to be sovereign! no ruddy foriners tellin' us what to do. Bendy bananas innit. Keep 'em all out! British jobs for a Red White and Blue Brexit means brexit! We won, snowflake get over it.

Cough

On ‎09‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 19:21, blandy said:

It's about tedious repetition of the same thing over and over*

It's the sheer unthinking lack of originality that's so utterly humourless and tedious. It's been done a million times before, by people funnier than any of us.

I think what I'm pleading for is originality in humour not repeating tired old tropes.

*yes, Stewart Lee does that, but he does it deliberately and absurdly and it works. so in summary "You're just a shit Stewart Lee" Lol

 

 

 

[Enda]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Yes, I understand the basics of a how a trade deal works. My point (obviously not very well expressed) was there are several larger wolves considerably closer to the sleigh that need to be discussed as a higher priority in their first meeting. Grand strategy stuff that's an order of magnitude more important to cover off as quickly as possible.

Sure, grand strategy stuff. The grand view of the empire and all the rest of it.

But imho Parliament is finally getting to the nuts and bolts of this Brexit thing: exactly which regulations is the government willing to jettison to encourage trade outside the EU. Finally. I think it's high time you lot get passed the grand strategy stuff and talk details, especially if negotiations start in six weeks. The vote was six months ago. If it's so easy to strike up trade deals, then get on with it.

By the way if the UK e.g. permits the use of hormones to fatten cattle, I for one am less willing to permit free trade of England's agricultural goods into Ireland. So, in other words, making trade easier with the US can make trade with the EU harder. Same goes with e.g. adopting US fire safety standards or God forbid Chinese pharma standards.

I think it's high-time for less of the grand-standing grand strategy stuff, how about Theresa May stops hiding and puts some meat on the bones.

[blandy]

@tonyh29 - fair cop. I shall endeavour not to do any more "take back control, nasty foreigner" gags.

I think I'll have to resort to quoting the actual UKIPs peoples and more rabid leave people from now on. When the "truth" is funnier than fiction, what else can you do?