EU exit - So folks what are you all thinking?

quinsforever wrote:there is so much wrong with your post it's impossible to know where to start

bottom line. the EU cannot stop itself from REGULATING in the belief that IT KNOWS BEST.

the UK, and US, believe that CONSUMERS and INDIVIDUALS are the best ones to make their own decisions and that the market (and not government regulation) is the best way for an economy to allocate resources to meet that consumer demand.

i know which system my bet is on in anything beyond the very political short-term.

lostinwales wrote:

quinsforever wrote:there is so much wrong with your post it's impossible to know where to start

bottom line. the EU cannot stop itself from REGULATING in the belief that IT KNOWS BEST.

the UK, and US, believe that CONSUMERS and INDIVIDUALS are the best ones to make their own decisions and that the market (and not government regulation) is the best way for an economy to allocate resources to meet that consumer demand.

i know which system my bet is on in anything beyond the very political short-term.

This is a great basis for an argument. Absolutes either way tend to lead to disaster in the long term. You can definitely argue that too much regulation stifles growth, but you can also argue that the quality of life by any reasonable assessment is going down in the USA, and going up in Europe. I'd also argue that freedom of choice in the USA is increasingly an illusion, that unfettered 'choice' has lead to the growth of a few companies to the point at which they are close to being uncontrollable.

No 7&1/2 wrote:What sort of brexit would be a failure for you quins. Try to be specific.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Apparently all flights out of the UK would simply stop the day we left the EU....even birds would not be able to fly they would be grounded.

....Although is Coronavirus the start of it....

BamBam wrote:Nothing has changed because of the transition period. The goalposts have just been moved forward 12 months, gives BoJo the chance to negotiate his world conquering deal

SecretFly wrote:

BamBam wrote:Nothing has changed because of the transition period. The goalposts have just been moved forward 12 months, gives BoJo the chance to negotiate his world conquering deal

Yis don't want to conquer the world again do yis?

I fear we have awoken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.

BamBam wrote:Nothing has changed because of the transition period. The goalposts have just been moved forward 12 months, gives BoJo the chance to negotiate his world conquering deal

No 7&1/2 wrote:What sort of brexit would be a failure for you quins. Try to be specific.

quinsforever wrote:
whenever i hear a european politician say the uk isnt a member of the club anymore it can't have all the benefits, that cracks me up....because if we had thought they were "all...benefits", we clearly would never have left!

quinsforever wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What sort of brexit would be a failure for you quins. Try to be specific.

not falling into your trap of making "specific" predictions.

a brexit failure for me would be one which saw the UK in any way subject to EU regulations which hampered the UK's ability to be globally competitive. i back UK innovation and entrepreneurialism and the anglo-saxon capital model over centrally controlled Franco-German approach every single time.

whenever i hear a european politician say the uk isnt a member of the club anymore it can't have all the benefits, that cracks me up....because if we had thought they were "all...benefits", we clearly would never have left!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ab yes the old trap of asking what you voted for. Fair enough you dont know. Do you think what you want is realistic as if we want to trade with the eu we'll have to meet their regulations?
Also which exact regulations have meant that the uk havent been globally competitive?

No 7&1/2 wrote:So no trade deal and WTO is something youd be happy with then quins. Wouldn't you be upset that this wasnt set out by anyone ahead of the referendum? That was labelled as scaremongering. And again according to the prime minister dropping workers rights etc is project fear. So are you actually saying the version of Brexit people voted for wont be good enough for you?

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So no trade deal and WTO is something youd be happy with then quins. Wouldn't you be upset that this wasnt set out by anyone ahead of the referendum? That was labelled as scaremongering. And again according to the prime minister dropping workers rights etc is project fear. So are you actually saying the version of Brexit people voted for wont be good enough for you?

Didn't quins emigrate to NZ?

LondonTiger wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So no trade deal and WTO is something youd be happy with then quins. Wouldn't you be upset that this wasnt set out by anyone ahead of the referendum? That was labelled as scaremongering. And again according to the prime minister dropping workers rights etc is project fear. So are you actually saying the version of Brexit people voted for wont be good enough for you?

Didn't quins emigrate to NZ?

that was yappy, a different quins fan. I know they all look alike but......

No 7&1/2 wrote:So no trade deal and WTO is something youd be happy with then quins. Wouldn't you be upset that this wasnt set out by anyone ahead of the referendum? That was labelled as scaremongering. And again according to the prime minister dropping workers rights etc is project fear. So are you actually saying the version of Brexit people voted for wont be good enough for you?

quinsforever wrote:i don't remember anything on the referendum about WTO, FTA, customs union. or on the last two general election ballots.

a vote to leave was a vote to leave. especially with all the warnings from, as you say, project FEAR.

people's decisions were made with a lot more time and effort than goes into your rapid-fire pedantic posts...

SecretFly wrote:I fear it will a brighter happier UK and future generations will hide the old photos of frowning Granddads and Great Granddads festooned in the EU badges.

SecretFly wrote:I fear it will a brighter happier UK and future generations will hide the old photos of frowning Granddads and Great Granddads festooned in the EU badges.

SecretFly wrote:Well, wait a few years and then perhaps place that bet.  Timing is everything Rodders.

tigertattie wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Well, wait a few years and then perhaps place that bet.  Timing is everything Rodders.

Even I'd bet on the UK going bye bye in the next decade.

I think it is wrong for Scotland to leave the UK, I think it is wrong for the UK to leave Europe.

Unfortunately, the SNP, who really don’t give a flying rat's backside about the EU, are using it as political leverage on how "Scotland's voice hasn’t been listened to" in order to ram the independence debate down folks throats again.

I can then see NI not wanting to be part of the UK and separated further from Ireland and the EU. Then we'll be looking at a unification of the island.

It then comes down to Wales and England who did vote to leave Europe. I can't see Wales wanting to hang about with England without it's Celtic cousins to back them up in arguments with Westminster.

SecretFly wrote:

tigertattie wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Well, wait a few years and then perhaps place that bet.  Timing is everything Rodders.

Even I'd bet on the UK going bye bye in the next decade.

I think it is wrong for Scotland to leave the UK, I think it is wrong for the UK to leave Europe.

Unfortunately, the SNP, who really don’t give a flying rat's backside about the EU, are using it as political leverage on how "Scotland's voice hasn’t been listened to" in order to ram the independence debate down folks throats again.

I can then see NI not wanting to be part of the UK and separated further from Ireland and the EU. Then we'll be looking at a unification of the island.

It then comes down to Wales and England who did vote to leave Europe. I can't see Wales wanting to hang about with England without it's Celtic cousins to back them up in arguments with Westminster.

Supposing all that happens.  Ireland unites, Scotland, Wales AND England become truly Independent in political terms.... what then?

An agreement reached between all National Governments to cooperate on the islands in the spirit of friendliness, good trading relationships and special status ease of travel for citizens between those Nations?  Why?  Because it would be necessary to be close enough partners and friends.  Business and politics is business and politics.  Ways would have to be found to make the new reality work for all.

But why not leave well enough alone then?

SecretFly wrote:

rodders wrote:
Why do you think the UK is so keen to avoid any legally binding alignment commitments to EU standards?

It's not doom-mongering it is all very clear what lies ahead and whether or not any of us will benefit or not from being outside the EU, depending on our individual circumstance. I'd suggest if you work for a living then most likely not.

So EU standards increase the cost of production, increase the cost of products to the consumer, increase the cost of living, increase the wages demanded by workers?
It's natural.  It's a natural flow.

So in that full economic loop, where's the brake? The EU adds more and more 'standards', as they are very much more an habitual law creating legislative body than a simple Trading bloc/entity.  They won't stop producing higher standards for everything because that's how they do the 'protectionist' element and create an internal captive market for EU produced goods.
Ask any farmer you might know, for example, how much bookwork is now demanded from people who simply want to, have the skills to and enjoyed producing foodstuffs for the market.  Farmers are not natural Office people - they are producers.  
Employing someone else to look after the bookwork increases their costs.  That finally gets to the consumer.  Getting a spouse to do the bookwork for free is giving the State yet another unpaid worker bee.

Yes, there is a need for quality assurances when public health is to be considered but farmers know how many acres of the paperwork is excessive and actively designed to kill off their enthusiasm so that Agriculture becomes solely a big industry with large companies controlling most agricultural acreage. Excessive Standards kill off people who wish to Work for a living.

So the alternative?  The loop in reverse?  Less bureaucratic standards and compliance paperwork, less cost of production, less price to the consumer, more competitiveness with the larger world outside EU borders, less burden on consumers buying services and products, less need for soaring salaries.... but still income enough to live comfortably within that alternative loop?
Greed creates the template for ever increasing standard demands as companies themselves can lobby for tougher codes as they know doing so forces weaker competitors out of the market and indeed, as a consequence, virtually turns their services or products into mandatory purchases.  But greed creates the first chunk in that Standards loop that goes all the way to ever highening costs of living v ever increasing need for more income.

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

rodders wrote:
Why do you think the UK is so keen to avoid any legally binding alignment commitments to EU standards?

It's not doom-mongering it is all very clear what lies ahead and whether or not any of us will benefit or not from being outside the EU, depending on our individual circumstance. I'd suggest if you work for a living then most likely not.

So EU standards increase the cost of production, increase the cost of products to the consumer, increase the cost of living, increase the wages demanded by workers?
It's natural.  It's a natural flow.

So in that full economic loop, where's the brake? The EU adds more and more 'standards', as they are very much more an habitual law creating legislative body than a simple Trading bloc/entity.  They won't stop producing higher standards for everything because that's how they do the 'protectionist' element and create an internal captive market for EU produced goods.
Ask any farmer you might know, for example, how much bookwork is now demanded from people who simply want to, have the skills to and enjoyed producing foodstuffs for the market.  Farmers are not natural Office people - they are producers.  
Employing someone else to look after the bookwork increases their costs.  That finally gets to the consumer.  Getting a spouse to do the bookwork for free is giving the State yet another unpaid worker bee.

Yes, there is a need for quality assurances when public health is to be considered but farmers know how many acres of the paperwork is excessive and actively designed to kill off their enthusiasm so that Agriculture becomes solely a big industry with large companies controlling most agricultural acreage. Excessive Standards kill off people who wish to Work for a living.

So the alternative?  The loop in reverse?  Less bureaucratic standards and compliance paperwork, less cost of production, less price to the consumer, more competitiveness with the larger world outside EU borders, less burden on consumers buying services and products, less need for soaring salaries.... but still income enough to live comfortably within that alternative loop?
Greed creates the template for ever increasing standard demands as companies themselves can lobby for tougher codes as they know doing so forces weaker competitors out of the market and indeed, as a consequence, virtually turns their services or products into mandatory purchases.  But greed creates the first chunk in that Standards loop that goes all the way to ever highening costs of living v ever increasing need for more income.

CAP ensures that farmers are not out of pocket for complying with EU standards and completing the paperwork. As for cheaper food without the EU getting involved. I saw some figures on the breakdown of beef production costs. Irish farmers were getting about €2.15 per kilo for beef from the factories. The actual cost of producing a kilo is €2.75. Without CAP (and relying on market demand) farmers would just go out of business which would lead to food shortages.

tigertattie wrote:

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

rodders wrote:
Why do you think the UK is so keen to avoid any legally binding alignment commitments to EU standards?

It's not doom-mongering it is all very clear what lies ahead and whether or not any of us will benefit or not from being outside the EU, depending on our individual circumstance. I'd suggest if you work for a living then most likely not.

So EU standards increase the cost of production, increase the cost of products to the consumer, increase the cost of living, increase the wages demanded by workers?
It's natural.  It's a natural flow.

So in that full economic loop, where's the brake? The EU adds more and more 'standards', as they are very much more an habitual law creating legislative body than a simple Trading bloc/entity.  They won't stop producing higher standards for everything because that's how they do the 'protectionist' element and create an internal captive market for EU produced goods.
Ask any farmer you might know, for example, how much bookwork is now demanded from people who simply want to, have the skills to and enjoyed producing foodstuffs for the market.  Farmers are not natural Office people - they are producers.  
Employing someone else to look after the bookwork increases their costs.  That finally gets to the consumer.  Getting a spouse to do the bookwork for free is giving the State yet another unpaid worker bee.

Yes, there is a need for quality assurances when public health is to be considered but farmers know how many acres of the paperwork is excessive and actively designed to kill off their enthusiasm so that Agriculture becomes solely a big industry with large companies controlling most agricultural acreage. Excessive Standards kill off people who wish to Work for a living.

So the alternative?  The loop in reverse?  Less bureaucratic standards and compliance paperwork, less cost of production, less price to the consumer, more competitiveness with the larger world outside EU borders, less burden on consumers buying services and products, less need for soaring salaries.... but still income enough to live comfortably within that alternative loop?
Greed creates the template for ever increasing standard demands as companies themselves can lobby for tougher codes as they know doing so forces weaker competitors out of the market and indeed, as a consequence, virtually turns their services or products into mandatory purchases.  But greed creates the first chunk in that Standards loop that goes all the way to ever highening costs of living v ever increasing need for more income.

CAP ensures that farmers are not out of pocket for complying with EU standards and completing the paperwork. As for cheaper food without the EU getting involved. I saw some figures on the breakdown of beef production costs. Irish farmers were getting about €2.15 per kilo for beef from the factories. The actual cost of producing a kilo is €2.75. Without CAP (and relying on market demand) farmers would just go out of business which would lead to food shortages.

Dont worry Sin, we'll not be short on beef because we'll get a trade deal with the yanks to bring in thier chorinated, hormone injected, full of antibiotics beef at $2 a kilo.

Its Irish pork, Scotch beef, Scotch lamb (or even the Welsh stuff) for me thanks.

tigertattie wrote:

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

rodders wrote:
Why do you think the UK is so keen to avoid any legally binding alignment commitments to EU standards?

It's not doom-mongering it is all very clear what lies ahead and whether or not any of us will benefit or not from being outside the EU, depending on our individual circumstance. I'd suggest if you work for a living then most likely not.

So EU standards increase the cost of production, increase the cost of products to the consumer, increase the cost of living, increase the wages demanded by workers?
It's natural.  It's a natural flow.

So in that full economic loop, where's the brake? The EU adds more and more 'standards', as they are very much more an habitual law creating legislative body than a simple Trading bloc/entity.  They won't stop producing higher standards for everything because that's how they do the 'protectionist' element and create an internal captive market for EU produced goods.
Ask any farmer you might know, for example, how much bookwork is now demanded from people who simply want to, have the skills to and enjoyed producing foodstuffs for the market.  Farmers are not natural Office people - they are producers.  
Employing someone else to look after the bookwork increases their costs.  That finally gets to the consumer.  Getting a spouse to do the bookwork for free is giving the State yet another unpaid worker bee.

Yes, there is a need for quality assurances when public health is to be considered but farmers know how many acres of the paperwork is excessive and actively designed to kill off their enthusiasm so that Agriculture becomes solely a big industry with large companies controlling most agricultural acreage. Excessive Standards kill off people who wish to Work for a living.

So the alternative?  The loop in reverse?  Less bureaucratic standards and compliance paperwork, less cost of production, less price to the consumer, more competitiveness with the larger world outside EU borders, less burden on consumers buying services and products, less need for soaring salaries.... but still income enough to live comfortably within that alternative loop?
Greed creates the template for ever increasing standard demands as companies themselves can lobby for tougher codes as they know doing so forces weaker competitors out of the market and indeed, as a consequence, virtually turns their services or products into mandatory purchases.  But greed creates the first chunk in that Standards loop that goes all the way to ever highening costs of living v ever increasing need for more income.

CAP ensures that farmers are not out of pocket for complying with EU standards and completing the paperwork. As for cheaper food without the EU getting involved. I saw some figures on the breakdown of beef production costs. Irish farmers were getting about €2.15 per kilo for beef from the factories. The actual cost of producing a kilo is €2.75. Without CAP (and relying on market demand) farmers would just go out of business which would lead to food shortages.

Dont worry Sin, we'll not be short on beef because we'll get a trade deal with the yanks to bring in thier chorinated, hormone injected, full of antibiotics beef at $2 a kilo.

Its Irish pork, Scotch beef, Scotch lamb (or even the Welsh stuff) for me thanks.

tigertattie wrote:Rodders (I'm remoing the quote spam)

Country of origin appears on the label of some food products. In the EU, it is a legal requirement to label beef and veal by the country where the animal was born, the country of fattening and the country of slaughter.

It is also a legal requirement to label the country of fattening and the country of slaughter on fresh or frozen meat from pigs, sheep and poultry.

It would be more helpful if the label also had to show the country where the animal was born, as is the case for beef and veal, it will indicate to some extent whether there has been long distance live animal transport, the length of the food chain and the number of different countries involved.

In short, Scotch beef (to be labelled Scotch beef) has to have been born, reared and slaughtered in Scotland to be givne that label.

Most lamb is the same but it can be from. say NZ, mistreated, then shipped over here to fatten up then be killed.

Chicken is a bit of a lottery. Pork too (that still mostly comes form Denmark)