Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

fash wrote: »

A wonderful example of a brexiter deliberately misleading statement: the chlorine washed chicken issue is regarding the absolutely horrifyingly filthy conditions in which the chicken is kept such that dunking it in chlorine is the hope (but as it turns out not reality) that it will make the cob chicken edible. You've been told this time and time again yet you continue with your deliberately deceptive statements on this.

The chlorine wash still makes the meat safer though and its not as if food from the EU is immune to this. See https://www.dw.com/en/chicken-meat-rife-with-antibiotic-resistant-superbugs/a-48365258

Germanwatch had 59 chicken meat samples from large discount supermarkets analyzed at a university lab and found that 56% were colonized by antibiotic-resistant germs. The meat samples came from the four largest slaughterhouses in Germany. Responding to the study, the Federal Agriculture Ministry said it "suggests that too many antibiotics are used in the poultry industry."

And how many people here have travelled to America and eaten chicken there? It seems a bit hypercritical to accept it there but not here.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Safer than what?

Safer than if it was not used on the meat. Context, dear boy.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

That means nothing though. I could say that running it under a tap would make it safer. Still doesn't make it actually safe for human consumption though.
You're trying to hide the issue with something that amounts to pretty much nothing.
As for your pretentious "dear boy" quip, don't be so patronising!

Washing chicken under a tap is discouraged because it spreads the bacteria that probably infect it. It would be chlorine washed though. But ultimately to make sure that it's safe you cook it thoroughly at high temperature all the way through.

sondagefaux wrote: »

Preliminary figures for 2019 Irish goods exports show that Irish goods exports to Britain was 8.865% of overall goods exports of close to €152.6 billion.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/gei/goodsexportsandimportsdecember2019/

This compares to about 12.4% in 2015, and represents a fall of 28.5% in the four years since 2015.

This is a huge diversion of trade in such a short space of time, is very likely to continue and probably accelerate this year and after, and shows that Irish exporters have been very successful at finding alternative markets to Britain fairly quickly.

My guess is that it will fall to about 5% by the mid-2020s.

What's more, the CSO are very on the ball here: they've broken out the UK figures into NI and GB components, see Table 4. Exports to NI increased, even as exports to GB decreased.

With the combination of NI's special position with respect to the goods portion of the EU Single Market and the GB's trajectory towards a very hard Brexit trade deal with the EU at the end of 2020, one can only agree with sondagefaux's point that the above trends will only accelerate.

AllForIt wrote: »

Incidentally it's kinda pitiful to hear the same old remainer arguments on this thread going round in circles ad infinitum.

What pitiful remainer arguments are those? Personally at this stage I just now want to see the UK brought to its ignominious post brexit end state (shorn of Scotland and NI) as quickly and satisfyingly as possible. It's the best antidote to brexiter nonsense - so certainly I have no interest in remainer arguments - I do however have an interest in countering brexiter lies insofar as they seek to spread their lies into the EU and Ireland - that of course needs to be countered

Rain Ascending wrote: »

I see that there is some kerfuffle around Brandon Lewis's recent statements. My reading is that this is just Lewis trying to ingratiate himself with his new boss by restating said boss's line that there will be no checks on the Irish Sea in an even more extreme manner. After all, his predecessor just got sacked for stating the bleedin' obvious a couple of times last year ("no-deal Brexit is very bad news for Northern Ireland" and "no, we are not going to withhold cooperation on security from the EU").

The real dispute is around the implementation of the NI Protocol in the WA. As ever, Tony Connelly gets to the nub of the matter:
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1228345212541423616

Where will this end?

Well, we could all war-game out disaster scenarios, but this government has form on what happens when political bluster meet legal reality. Remember the Benn Act? Boris Johnson swearing for months on end that he would not request an extension to Article 50. "Downing Street sources" suggesting to journalists wheeze after wheeze to weasel out of said act. Newspapers printing these, senior political correspondents tweeting these as if they had some real basis, without critical appraisal. Legal experts replying that these were all nonsense (remember the "just respond with 'No, Padfield...'" tweets?). And then Johnson meekly changing his red lines, negotiating a new WA that suited the EU better than Theresa May's deal and sending in the extension request in a rather petulant manner.

I don't foresee a different outcome here.

I hope you are correct here.

However up until the most recent election Johnson was in a far more precarious position and couldn't go for an obvious hard exit without risking his position. So he was forced to request another extension simply because going for a hard Brexit at that point could have failed. Now that he has a large majority and has purged the party and cabinet of anyone likely to challenge him, his actions and the statements of his acolytes are (IMO) more representative of his true intentions than they were previously.

The difference now, I think, is that Johnson has got himself in a position where he can play games with the EU, crash out with no deal, and still remain PM for another few years.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The con job will be clear to them when the immigrants continue to arrive from outside the EU, then they'll realise that Brexit was not the solution to their issues.

Not really. The government will state it is going to do something, and will pick on a few to kick them out.

Some numbers will produced, if higher say that it means a healthy economy and they will send packing within two years.

They will continue to blame the historic legacy of EU migration, and then turn their attention to some other group

AllForIt wrote: »

Incidentally it's kinda pitiful to hear the same old remainer arguments on this thread going round in circles ad infinitum.

Would it not be time to wrap up this thread up and start a thread on the UK after Brexit and what it means for the EU and Ireland. That would be more worthwhile I feel. I still think there are some remainers that haven't grasped reality - that Brexit is happening whether you like or not. There is no point in going over old ground and a new thread might focus attention on the future and not the past.

From an experimental point of view Brexit will serve to show how valuable it is to be in a political EU at all. Although I think we already know it's the nation's that are small that benefit the most and the larger economies that benefit the least.

That's an interesting post. So you are saying

1) kill this thread because remainers keep bringing up the same old arguments.
2) You then bring up an old argument yourself .

Just to post on more on the excellent work of Julian Smith in his short stay in NI.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/15/pm-sacked-julian-smith-hero-church-abuse-survivors

Set up the abuse redress

Saw this very interesting comment in a thread on the online version of the indo's article shown above. Nice, handy set of numbers to show exactly how much negotiation needs to occur by 1/1/2020 in order for the UK to keep it's existing trade and regulatory arrangements in place. It's very substantial:

7% of the EU’s exports go to the UK

59% of the UK’s exports go to the EU (47%) and to non-EU countries via EU trade deals (12%)

Of the UK’s top 50 trade partners who account for 92% of the UK’s trade, 41 are either EU member state, are in the process of becoming a EU member state or have a trade agreement with the EU via which you trade with them

The UK trades with only 24 countries under WTO terms only. It trades with 72 countries via EU trade agreements.

The EU has:

(-) a gold standard Single Market + Customs union of 27 EU member states.

(-) 4 single market participation trade deals with non-EU states

(-) 3 customs union trade agreements with non-EU states. None of them want to roll over their trade deals with the EU to he UK

(-) 72 FTAs with non-EU countries with non-EU states for which it has WTO ATP status meaning that without the EU’s permission you can’t do a FTA with them.
Three years ago the EU generously gave the UK permission to ask these 72 states to roll over the terms of trade of the EU FTAs to the UK. Only 20 have done and at worse terms or at a cost. For instance, the South African Nations said: sure, that will cost you £4bn (to keep the same terms of trade with their nations), which May described as a big success. Furthermore none of the large FTAs (Canada, Japan etc) want to roll over their FTAs to the UK and want them changed (= worse terms for the UK).
Kindly note that the EU-Japan FTA covers almost one third of the world’s economy creating the largest FTA on earth.

(-) 224 bilateral trade deals, none of them rolled over to the UK

(-) 202 Regulatory Cooperation Agreements - everything from anti-trust to data sharing. none of them rolled over to the UK

(-) 69 Fisheries Agreements - access to waters, protection of stocks, none of them rolled over to the UK

(-) 65 Transport Agreements, none of them rolled over to the UK

(-) 49 Customs Agreements, none of them rolled over to the UK

(-) 45 Nuclear Agreements, none of them rolled over to the UK

(-) 34 Agriculture Agreements, none of them rolled over to the UK