Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Mikey1874]

3 minutes ago, Cade said:

*and could have been blue at any time over the last 40-odd years, as passport colour was NEVER an EU regulation.

 

Tory government (EU supporter Thatcher) did that. 

[dobmisterdobster]

2 hours ago, Cade said:

One petulant spoilt child has walked off in a huff.

Many other nations are in the process of joining and the EU continues to sign massive global trade deals.

 

At least try and sound plausible.

[The Mighty Thor]

46 minutes ago, Cade said:

*and could have been blue at any time over the last 40-odd years, as passport colour was NEVER an EU regulation.

Taking back control likesy. 

[Cade]

The Director General of UK Visas and Immigration and HM Passport Office has resigned, blaming Patel's unreasonable and illegal demands on immigration policy.

It's all going swimmingly then.

 

 

[jake]

12 hours ago, Cade said:

I'm sure the 27 nations will manage to come to a deal to spread the 75billion budget shortfall between them just fine.

They'll cut back some programmes to lower the budget, everybody will pay a wee bit more, the richer nations paying in more than the poorer ones.

Nil desperandum in the EU.

Austerity for all yay .

Good old EU .

 

 

[maroonlegions]

What Tory Brexit was all about.

 

A isolated British Isles with more and more EU protected rights disappearing. British workers rights and their  pay and working conditions  that are protected by EU law are also under threat .

 

[maroonlegions]

On 19/02/2020 at 21:04, Justin Z said:

 

No. It's extremely nonstandard. You're assuming a lot without any training or direct experience of either. You asked, I answered. If you're not going to believe a word of it and instead are going to press on with the story you've already invented in your head, skip the asking next time, ta.

 

 

 

The Tory manipulation machine now knows no bounds  of respect and treating  those with the dignaty they fecking deserve  and it will in time be its downfall. 

 

There constant use of sneaky rhetoric to label and divide is now in plain sight, that is how arrogant they have become.   

 

UNSKILLED they say ,bet you not one Tory appoilidst on here could do the jobs that frontline , sorry unskilled workers do on a daily basis.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dawnrazor]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/eu-summit-collapses-as-leaders-struggle-to-fill-€75bn-brexit-hole/ar-BB10evd2?ocid=sf

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

I see Austria has brought in border control (restricting access from Italy). Thought you had to leave the EU to do that?

Or am I mistaken for Tory bullshit over the Tory's failed immigration targets?

[Cade]

10 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

I see Austria has brought in border control (restricting access from Italy). Thought you had to leave the EU to do that?

Or am I mistaken for Tory bullshit over the Tory's failed immigration targets?

The latter.

The UK has always been able to restrict immigration.

It suited the establishment not to so it could keep pretending it was the evil EU forcing people to be let in.

[Boris]

12 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

I see Austria has brought in border control (restricting access from Italy). Thought you had to leave the EU to do that?

Or am I mistaken for Tory bullshit over the Tory's failed immigration targets?

 

Probably a health & safety reaction to the Italian outbreak of coronavirus?

[Boris]

1 minute ago, Cade said:

The latter.

The UK has always been able to restrict immigration.

It suited the establishment not to so it could keep pretending it was the evil EU forcing people to be let in.

 

Yes, but there was still free movement between EU states.

 

Austria closing the border to Italy isn't a matter of caprice, but a reaction to coronavirus.

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, Cade said:

The latter.

The UK has always been able to restrict immigration.

It suited the establishment not to so it could keep pretending it was the evil EU forcing people to be let in.

 

We've discussed this a fair bit on this board and it's seemingly always forgotten for some reason. 🤔 But yes, the UK government always had the power to restrict EU migration in myriad ways and basically never did so, because, as you say, of political expediency.

 

[Boris]

19 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

We've discussed this a fair bit on this board and it's seemingly always forgotten for some reason. 🤔 But yes, the UK government always had the power to restrict EU migration in myriad ways and basically never did so, because, as you say, of political expediency.

 

 

Yes and no?  If someone from an EU member state has a job in another member state, then nothing to stop them taking it? i.e. the right to work in any EU member state enshrined in freedom of movement? 

 

Of course that's different to simply moving to another EU state.  EU members can repatriate non-nationals who are eu citizens if they are not working.

 

As I understood it...

Edited February 24, 2020 by Boris

[Cade]

Free movement in the EU is for workers.

i.e. if you had a job offer you could move.

The right wing in the UK have made a myth that the EU stood for free movement of people, whether or not they had a job.

 

 

[Justin Z]

31 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Yes and no?  If someone from an EU member state has a job in another member state, then nothing to stop them taking it? i.e. the right to work in any EU member state enshrined in freedom of movement? 

 

Of course that's different to simply moving to another EU state.  EU members can repatriate non-nationals who are eu citizens if they are not working.

 

As I understood it...

 

That's correct. The popular explanation we've had to deal with on here leaves out that very specific point--that it's actually the free movement of labour, not the free movement of people--as you understood and explained perfectly in paragraph 2, indeed.

 

In addition, benefits eligibility is by and large up to each member state, within prescribed guidelines, and the UK imposed various requirements on EEA citizens before they could become eligible for common benefits like jobseekers' allowance and housing benefit. The government introduced these restrictions in 2014 and could've potentially tightened them further at any time, too.

[maroonlegions]

54 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

That's correct. The popular explanation we've had to deal with on here leaves out that very specific point--that it's actually the free movement of labour, not the free movement of people--as you understood and explained perfectly in paragraph 2, indeed.

 

In addition, benefits eligibility is by and large up to each member state, within prescribed guidelines, and the UK imposed various requirements on EEA citizens before they could become eligible for common benefits like jobseekers' allowance and housing benefit. The government introduced these restrictions in 2014 and could've potentially tightened them further at any time, too.

 

 

 

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

Free movement in the EU is for workers.

i.e. if you had a job offer you could move.

The right wing in the UK have made a myth that the EU stood for free movement of people, whether or not they had a job.

 

Not so sure about that, I moved without a job offer.

The EU rules are meant to be that you have to be working within 3 months or you can be asked to leave but I've read that the UK have never actually exercised that right to remove, I don't think Holland has either for that matter. It amounts to the same thing though, as you say it's meant to be freedom to work within the EU.

 

So we've always had the right to tighten up immigration, to remove EU pisstakers, to increase border checks,  even to have blue passports. But we've chosen not to.

[Justin Z]

3 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

Not so sure about that, I moved without a job offer.

The EU rules are meant to be that you have to be working within 3 months or you can be asked to leave but I've read that the UK have never actually exercised that right to remove, I don't think Holland has either for that matter. It amounts to the same thing though, as you say it's meant to be freedom to work within the EU.

 

So we've always had the right to tighten up immigration, to remove EU pisstakers, to increase border checks,  even to have blue passports. But we've chosen not to.

 

You're both correct, and like you said, they always had the right to tighten it up in practice but never went to the bother. Why? Because it wasn't actually the bother they could claim it was for political purposes.

[NANOJAMBO]

6 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

Not so sure about that, I moved without a job offer.

The EU rules are meant to be that you have to be working within 3 months or you can be asked to leave but I've read that the UK have never actually exercised that right to remove, I don't think Holland has either for that matter. It amounts to the same thing though, as you say it's meant to be freedom to work within the EU.

 

So we've always had the right to tighten up immigration, to remove EU pisstakers, to increase border checks,  even to have blue passports. But we've chosen not to.

Correct. So all this supposed drain on the NHS/schools/housing could have been put to bed years ago.  But then ERG always wanted to leave , regardless , and had to find a way to convince voters to get out and to vote leave. 

[CJGJ]

Soon our Brexiteer friends may be consuming chlorinated chicken as part of a deal with mighty mouth in the States if he gets his way

 

Illegal immigration growing by the month as more and more boats attempt a channel crossing with few attempts to stop them now

 

There will not be enough people to service the needs of the population and the idiot of a home secretary with her 8 million nonsense has as much mathematical intelligence as Dianne Abbot..points based to help the rich not to help the needs of the poor

One good thing though many of those people who voted to leave and who will now find labour difficult to find to do the lower paid jobs such as picking jobs at harvest time will, with luck, go bust, the 'poor' fishermen will find things not as straight forward as they like and with luck will also see their wealth decrease and that's what they voted for

When their parents are ill and can't get even the basic help due to staff shortages we'll not hear anything from them I hope as that's what they voted for

The north of England will suddenly realise that it is no longer required in terms of it's votes and of course they won't complain as that's what they voted for

 

Slowly the costs of leaving will become clear..not this year but 2021 onwards

[Cade]

Barnier ripping this pish out of the new Brexit spokesman, saying he needs to go and actually read the withdrawal arrangement.

UK still making unreasonable demands.

[The Mighty Thor]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

Barnier ripping this pish out of the new Brexit spokesman, saying he needs to go and actually read the withdrawal arrangement.

UK still making unreasonable demands.

Or as the mail and express will tell you tomorrow 'johnny foreigner trying to destroy sunlit uplands'

[Gorgiewave]

Lots of hatred of the UK on display in this thread. Disappointment ahead for the haters.

[Gorgiewave]

2 hours ago, CJGJ said:

Soon our Brexiteer friends may be consuming chlorinated chicken as part of a deal with mighty mouth in the States if he gets his way

 

Illegal immigration growing by the month as more and more boats attempt a channel crossing with few attempts to stop them now

 

There will not be enough people to service the needs of the population and the idiot of a home secretary with her 8 million nonsense has as much mathematical intelligence as Dianne Abbot..points based to help the rich not to help the needs of the poor

One good thing though many of those people who voted to leave and who will now find labour difficult to find to do the lower paid jobs such as picking jobs at harvest time will, with luck, go bust, the 'poor' fishermen will find things not as straight forward as they like and with luck will also see their wealth decrease and that's what they voted for

When their parents are ill and can't get even the basic help due to staff shortages we'll not hear anything from them I hope as that's what they voted for

The north of England will suddenly realise that it is no longer required in terms of it's votes and of course they won't complain as that's what they voted for

 

Slowly the costs of leaving will become clear..not this year but 2021 onwards

 

You sound as confident as those who predicted 800,000 job losses upon voting Leave.

[Justin Z]

I know when it comes to clarity of political thought my first choice of go-to opinion is a fascist ilepaculs.

[ri Alban]

Farmers started to speak out about chlorinated chicken. 'Insane' is the description they are using about allowing it into the market via the trade deals with The United States of America.

[The Mighty Thor]

13 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Farmers started to speak out about chlorinated chicken. 'Insane' is the description they are using about allowing it into the market via the trade deals with The United States of America.

Farmers have had their gas put at a peep today as DEFRA confirm that government payments to farmers will be cut by 25% next year. 

 

The brexit dividend. 👍

[The Mighty Thor]

Closely followed by the engine room of the UK economy, the financial sector, shedding 2,000 jobs. 

 

Not a good news day for the government. 

[SectionDJambo]

13 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Farmers started to speak out about chlorinated chicken. 'Insane' is the description they are using about allowing it into the market via the trade deals with The United States of America.

I’m as keen as anyone to keep the chlorinated chicken out of the uk. I don’t trust Johnson or his mates on this cosy relationship he has with The Donald.

However, if he does allow the US to send us those chickens, the only, and best, way to put a quick stop to it would be for the British public to insist that it is clearly labelled as being produced the way it is, and imported from the US. Then we all can make a choice as to whether we buy it or not. Low or zero sales will stop the import fairly quickly. It’s up to individual choice.

In my view, the British public hold the power on this, not Johnson or Trump.

[CJGJ]

1 minute ago, SectionDJambo said:

I’m as keen as anyone to keep the chlorinated chicken out of the uk. I don’t trust Johnson or his mates on this cosy relationship he has with The Donald.

However, if he does allow the US to send us those chickens, the only, and best, way to put a quick stop to it would be for the British public to insist that it is clearly labelled as being produced the way it is, and imported from the US. Then we all can make a choice as to whether we buy it or not. Low or zero sales will stop the import fairly quickly. It’s up to individual choice.

In my view, the British public hold the power on this, not Johnson or Trump.

or we just say no in the negotiations to that product....simple really unless you have no bottle or do not represent the people of your country and want to kiss the backside of a leader who at least thinks only of his people and cares not a jot about anyone else

[Jambo-Jimbo]

19 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said:

I’m as keen as anyone to keep the chlorinated chicken out of the uk. I don’t trust Johnson or his mates on this cosy relationship he has with The Donald.

However, if he does allow the US to send us those chickens, the only, and best, way to put a quick stop to it would be for the British public to insist that it is clearly labelled as being produced the way it is, and imported from the US. Then we all can make a choice as to whether we buy it or not. Low or zero sales will stop the import fairly quickly. It’s up to individual choice.

In my view, the British public hold the power on this, not Johnson or Trump.

 

Exactly, and a point which has conveniently been missed constantly by those who have banged on and on and on about chlorinated chicken this and chlorinated chicken that.

 

The simple fact is the yanks could send their chlorinated chicken over here by the millions, but it's entirely up to the British consumer whether they want to buy it or not, nobody is going to be forced to buy the fecking stuff.  Personally I won't be buying it and I think I'll be in the majority as I can't see the British public buying American chicken.

[Dawnrazor]

26 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Exactly, and a point which has conveniently been missed constantly by those who have banged on and on and on about chlorinated chicken this and chlorinated chicken that.

 

The simple fact is the yanks could send their chlorinated chicken over here by the millions, but it's entirely up to the British consumer whether they want to buy it or not, nobody is going to be forced to buy the fecking stuff.  Personally I won't be buying it and I think I'll be in the majority as I can't see the British public buying American chicken.

Pretty much how I feel about it if you don't want it don't buy it.

Surely if no one bought it they'd stop sending it?

 

[Cade]

EU has already said that the UK accepting low standard USA foods will be a red line, as the soft border in Ireland would let that shite flood into the EU through the back door.

 

[RobboM]

10 minutes ago, Cade said:

EU has already said that the UK accepting low standard USA foods will be a red line, as the soft border in Ireland would let that shite flood into the EU through the back door.

 

Exactly, it would affect UK exports of foodstuffs cotaining chicken if the source can't be trusted as meeting EU standards.

[The Mighty Thor]

42 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

Pretty much how I feel about it if you don't want it don't buy it.

Surely if no one bought it they'd stop sending it?

 

How do you trace it? It would come into the UK and end up in ready meals etc. 

I suspect folks would be unaware they were buying/eating it. 

[Dawnrazor]

4 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

How do you trace it? It would come into the UK and end up in ready meals etc. 

I suspect folks would be unaware they were buying/eating it. 

Fair point, it would be up to the "nugget" makers to weigh up how much getting cought using it would cost them. But I definitely get your point, i doubt that given the choice of whole, legs, breast or other chicken parts at the supermarket that it would be bought, I can see the pet food sector using it if it's cheaper.

[The Mighty Thor]

Just now, Dawnrazor said:

Fair point, it would be up to the "nugget" makers to weigh up how much getting cought using it would cost them. But I definitely get your point, i doubt that given the choice of whole, legs, breast or other chicken parts at the supermarket that it would be bought, I can see the pet food sector using it if it's cheaper.

From the sound of it I wouldn't fancy eating it. 

Mind you theres probably much that goes into our food we know little about. 

[Dawnrazor]

Just now, The Mighty Thor said:

From the sound of it I wouldn't fancy eating it. 

Mind you theres probably much that goes into our food we know little about. 

Looking at the size of many Americans it can't be that bad for you!!!

But no, I wouldn't buy it, but I don't by chicken anyway, not when there's pheasant and partridge 👍

[hughesie27]

There's not really anything wrong with chlorinated chicken in a dietary sense is there? Does it even taste noticeably different? Is it not more a case where the thought process is that if they use such a dramatic process to ensure their food is edible that they probably cut corners in the chain elsewhere?

[Cade]

6 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

There's not really anything wrong with chlorinated chicken in a dietary sense is there? Does it even taste noticeably different? Is it not more a case where the thought process is that if they use such a dramatic process to ensure their food is edible that they probably cut corners in the chain elsewhere?

Chicken is washed with chlorine to hide all manner of animal welfare problems.

It's cheap for a reason.

As UK farmers have to uphold higher levels of welfare, they will be undercut by the manky yankee shite.

So much for Brexit helping the fermers.

[SectionDJambo]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

EU has already said that the UK accepting low standard USA foods will be a red line, as the soft border in Ireland would let that shite flood into the EU through the back door.

 

Well that’s another reason why it probably won’t happen. Why import a product which will probably cause major public outcry, and which will prevent a negotiated deal with the EU.

Johnson is being quite bullish, seemingly thinking that the EU will back down, but they have red lines which they won’t back down on. It seems that the pesky Irish border problem, that wasn’t mentioned much for the referendum, is going to get in the way of a future deal.
Sometimes, it’s easier to think that the British negotiators are going to be told to be deliberately awkward, and then pin the blame on Johnny Foreigner if a deal isn’t done by the end of 2020.

[Justin Z]

16 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

There's not really anything wrong with chlorinated chicken in a dietary sense is there? Does it even taste noticeably different? Is it not more a case where the thought process is that if they use such a dramatic process to ensure their food is edible that they probably cut corners in the chain elsewhere?

 

In a dietary sense, no. I can't tell a difference in taste at all. Cade is quite right that it does mask animal welfare issues and other corner cutting, yes.

[ri Alban]

7 hours ago, SectionDJambo said:

I’m as keen as anyone to keep the chlorinated chicken out of the uk. I don’t trust Johnson or his mates on this cosy relationship he has with The Donald.

However, if he does allow the US to send us those chickens, the only, and best, way to put a quick stop to it would be for the British public to insist that it is clearly labelled as being produced the way it is, and imported from the US. Then we all can make a choice as to whether we buy it or not. Low or zero sales will stop the import fairly quickly. It’s up to individual choice.

In my view, the British public hold the power on this, not Johnson or Trump.

If it cheap people will buy it . As for  the farmers, they just want the market to themselves. 

 

Hopefully Holyrood bans it.

 

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by ri Alban

[ri Alban]

7 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Exactly, and a point which has conveniently been missed constantly by those who have banged on and on and on about chlorinated chicken this and chlorinated chicken that.

 

The simple fact is the yanks could send their chlorinated chicken over here by the millions, but it's entirely up to the British consumer whether they want to buy it or not, nobody is going to be forced to buy the fecking stuff.  Personally I won't be buying it and I think I'll be in the majority as I can't see the British public buying American chicken.

People are forced. When you're poor, you buy what you can afford. Otherwise we'd be the fittest country on the planet, not the second fattest.

[Unknown user]

8 hours ago, SectionDJambo said:

I’m as keen as anyone to keep the chlorinated chicken out of the uk. I don’t trust Johnson or his mates on this cosy relationship he has with The Donald.

However, if he does allow the US to send us those chickens, the only, and best, way to put a quick stop to it would be for the British public to insist that it is clearly labelled as being produced the way it is, and imported from the US. Then we all can make a choice as to whether we buy it or not. Low or zero sales will stop the import fairly quickly. It’s up to individual choice.

In my view, the British public hold the power on this, not Johnson or Trump.

How exactly would we go about insisting on this?

[SectionDJambo]

4 hours ago, Smithee said:

How exactly would we go about insisting on this?

We were told many times, during the election campaign, that Johnson placed paramount importance on animal welfare before entering the food chain. It was one of his hits to the EU, regarding the concern he said he had over movement of live animals.

Food has to be labelled as to where it came from, does it not? It wouldn’t be hard to avoid it if the concern of the UK public is real and wouldn’t be hard to ask the government why it was being imported in spite of assurances it wouldn’t.

If they were trading this chicken, who could believe that Johnson and Trump would not  be reneging on not having the NHS in their negotiations too.

 

[Unknown user]

Just now, SectionDJambo said:

We were told many times, during the election campaign, that Johnson placed paramount importance on animal welfare before entering the food chain. It was one of his hits to the EU, regarding the concern he said he had over movement of live animals.

Food has to be labelled as to where it came from, does it not? It wouldn’t be hard to avoid it if the concern of the UK public is real and wouldn’t be hard to ask the government why it was being imported in spite of assurances it wouldn’t.

If they were trading this chicken, who could believe that Johnson and Trump would not  be reneging on not having the NHS in their negotiations too.

 

 

 We've voted these arseholes in with a majority, they can do what they like.

 

What actual mechanisms do you reckon we can use to insist?

[RobboM]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

 

 We've voted these arseholes in with a majority, they can do what they like.

 

What actual mechanisms do you reckon we can use to insist?

Smithee. We have taken back control. We have all the power in these negotiations. The USA and EU need us much more than we need them. The trade negotiations will be simple. It's all there 🙂

 

[Unknown user]

7 minutes ago, RobboM said:

Smithee. We have taken back control. We have all the power in these negotiations. The USA and EU need us much more than we need them. The trade negotiations will be simple. It's all there 🙂

 

Well that's a relief!