I thought this too, but after reading those 5 pages am I mistaken in saying it's just a summation of the problems rather than a plan to tackle them?
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Tagline please, mods. "Needs another cat pic".
Nothing wrong with cat pics!
Though let's be fair, Owlos post was funny (I can laugh at myself) but didn't really answer the question I was asking. Granted it is an incredibly complicated situation with no prior basis in law to compare it with.
And the above is a worst case scenario, whether they changed the title or not. No deal is the worst case, therefore the base scenario is the worst case.
So if I am going to get a cool tagline that gets me inundated with cat pics, then at least let it be for good reason.
Tis the way of the caf.
You'd surely cover the full spectrum of potential outcomes though?
As I said as long as it isn't dangerous they can cut through the misinformation and make their own decisions; just like everyone does with dozens of decisions every day.
I have no concerns about the dumping of inferior goods. Consumers can choose whether the inferiority of goods is worth the reduction in cost. In terms of dangerous goods the UK will obviously have rules against the sale of dangerous goods (as does every first world country irrespective of whether they're in the EU).
I find the argument for protectionist tariffs to protect inefficient industry nonsensical & Trumpian. Either you adapt to the competition or you fall to the competition... That's capitalism. Either way efficient and adaptable businesses get new market opportunities that more than outweigh the deaths of inefficient businesses.
If something tasted good and was cheap, why does the public need to know exactly where the meat came from? If it tastes bad then the restaurant or fast food place would close down very quickly. If it was dangerous it wouldn't be allowed to open or would be shutdown.
Obviously there are rules against gross animal cruelty and in terms of legal cruel practices there's enough public campaigns and welfare organisations to shine a light on this.
I'm not sure what your statement argues? Are you arguing that it's immoral to give poorer people the option to buy cheaper meat and that instead it's better via onerous regulations to either force them into not being able to afford meat at all, or to force them to spend more of their limited finances than is required?
It's a shame as two of the most successful economies of the last few decades (Hong Kong pre-China and Singapore) both have shown it to be a great success.
Given the amount of pressure groups regarding animal welfare you can bet if animals were treated poorly the campaigning on this would make the selling of such products non-viable commercially.
In terms of public health no sane government would allow dangerous foods onto the shelves.
I find it strange how commercial businesses every single day are changing how they do business to appear more animal and environmentally friendly to appeal to their customer base. Whether they be only selling free range meat, not using plastic products, promoting green products etc (far more than most governments)... Yet this commercial logic would apparently go straight out of the window without EU regs
Last edited:
No...
There are different views on what could possibly happen under no deal. A realistic worst case view of them would include very different things to a best case view of them.
I'm saying that we can point out that people can choose not to buy crap cheap food, but we all know that the reality is skint people will buy cos it's a cheap- housing estate kids growing up on chlorinated chicken.
The Uk have to have standards - at present they use EU standards - this is not capitalism , it is a race to the bottom and the UK will be a dumping ground, the UK can't afford to produce at the same cost as China or Africa so many businesses will go bust and people will be out of work and people won't earn money and won't pay taxes - so health care and infrastructure etc will deteriorate - this is the the dream of Brexiters - sounds like a nightmare. Good luck, you'll need it.
Where were those resignations we were told that would follow Amber Rudd?
So you think all the problems wll go away within 3 months, this paper is a joke and if you believe this is the worst that can happen you have got a terrible shock coming.
Was that in this thread or elsewhere? I missed this.
There were rumours going around that other members of Cabinet were going to resign.
Oh, right. Surprises me. Given how late she did it, herself, it seems odd that people thought anyone else was left contemplating it.
People like Hancock should have resigned based on their previous statements/positions, but apparently decided that craven sycophancy was a better look.
If it gives them an extra few quid a week to make ends meet then I'd say it's cruel to artificially inflate the cost to make them poorer. Whilst at the same time potentially providing commercial prospects to a much poorer country and therefore dragging their population our of poverty. Seems like a win all round.
The logical conclusion to your argument is that the UK should set tariffs of 1000% on all products for every country. This way we'll manufacture everything ourselves so will have a booming steel industry, booming car industry etc.
That's nonsense of course. Setting tariff barriers to protect a countries own inefficient industry is almost conclusively proven to be counter productive to the wealth of a country as a whole. It's why Trump is an idiot.
Creating artificial industries with protectionist barriers merely delays the inevitable. If the UK put 1000% on all cars worldwide it wouldn't make the UK a haven for car manufacturing... It'd make the population forced into buying shitty, expensive cars. A few decades later even at 1000% tariffs we'd be better of buying from overseas, then do you increase the tariffs further?
Some inefficient industries would fail, others would thrive with increased competition, invest in greater efficiencies and end up selling their viable products across the world. The ones that would thrive would be high skilled manufactured/engineering as well as skilled services etc that couldn't be copied by an African startup. Far better paid of course than picking fruit.
He did answer your question over several posts, of which the cat post was but one. The Supreme Court making a final ruling on points of law is not unusual. The fact the court is Scottish is irrelevant and sets no precedent of superiority of a country's court over another as you seem to have been inferring.
Along with the reduction in value of the GBP vs the Euro I could see how retired Brits living in EU countries could be facing much higher costs for their place in the sun (if they get a UK pension).
Who is talking about 1000%. Trump is an idiot but the USA is your no.1 customer. The biggest export of the UK to the USA are cars. The car industry will disappear over the coming years after Brexit, it will relocate to Europe. Because the Uk put zero tariffs no other country is that daft and will protect their industries. It's not just the EU and the USA who impose tariffs. Trump's not going to let the UK export to the USA at zero tariffs. You have to negotiate deals. No-one is going to negotiate a deal if they can ship what they like to the UK without restriction.
Out of curiosity if the UK decided to set a 250% tariff on all vehicles coming into the UK do you believe in the short term it would have a positive effect on UK car manufacturing (for example because car makers would want to make Cara in the UK to avoid the tariffs)?
In terms of tariffs you'd have to apply some common sense. Unilaterally setting 0% tariffs irrespective of reciprocity day 1 globally... whilst it would be great long term would cause too many short term political complications.
The Mail, folks:
For starters, he didn't answer my question. Though I believe until the supreme court rules there is no answer in this case.
Often the answer is no, they do not have jurisdiction over the UK. But this is an unusual case.
The only thing to note here is while making their judgement, they made no order to the UK government to reopen parliament. That suggests they felt comfortable making the judgement, but not dictating to the UK government and would rather the supreme court decides. The UK government at that point had not stated it would appeal so the Scottish courts made a decision not to order the government.
Conversely English and Welsh law rarely has any authority in Scotland where the law differs. There is plenty of information regarding typical cases, both civil and criminal where the courts decisions only apply in the host country.
I do however appreciate Owlo taking the time to try and explain but like me, he was guessing, probably googling for answers. Neither of us are constitutional experts at the end of the day, nor is anyone here.
It was a perfectly fair question that ultimately can't move answered until the supreme court answers it.
Mystic Me said:
I prefer the healthy uk option, deep fried mars bars and pizza. Or a greasy kebab that tastes like a spicey heart attack.
That's basically what he was saying (whilst regularly pointing out he was not an expert). You really do confuse me.
If the Uk set such a tariff few people would be able to afford to buy one. There would be a hard border and the parts go back and forth outside the UK meaning tariffs and delays which is why the car industry would move away- the market in the EU is much bigger than the UK alone and the EU can still export the cars to the rest of the world as well.
Operating under WTO rules means you have to have your schedules and tariffs agreed by the other members.
Chicken Cottage might actually get even worse after Brexit.
Nothing is worse that Dallas Fried Chicken on Goldhawk Road!
That is the same for English courts as well.
The Scottish court had authority to consider the matter and all decisions are now heading higher for a final decision. I'm not sure why you are struggling with this so much.
Because Scottish law is different to English law, hence an English court ruled the opposite.
If it was straightforward there wouldn't be to opposing verdicts nor would it need to go to the supreme court. The courts themselves are struggling with this ffs.
Both lower courts had jurisdiction to decide. Both can be referred higher, which is what is happening. How is that confusing?
Scotland is part of Britain btw.
Scotland is part of Britain btw.
My god... You don't even deserve another cat.
It was nothing to do with Scottish law or English law being different. They aren't. They are the same. Only the judges were different.With me so far?
Different courts disagree all the time. It's part of the system.
It's ROUTINE for an issue challenging the government to go to at least the Court of Appeal stage, and often to the Supreme Court.
It's also ROUTINE for different courts, even within England to disagree with each other.
We've literally been through this exact conversation several times, and you keep saying 'it's very complicated' and mentioning Criminal Law in Scotland or something. It's not. It's simple.
Not if the definition of 'dangerous' is decided by the same capitalist forces (as you put it).
So there will be a shorter supply in the amount and types of food available, but that definitely isn't a food shortage.
I reckon you'd be making similar arguments for asbestos and tobacco in the 1970's.
Strangely enough, none of the Brexit supporting papers appear to be covering the Court of Session's judgement, nor anything relating to Yellowhammer on their front pages. Freddie Flintoff gets a mention though.
Definitely. I'm not one who routinely checks prices, because we're fortunate enough not to have to do that on a day-to-day basis. However, I've certainly noticed that it's getting expensive to live here in Italy.
Not interested in the pros and cons of chlorinated chickens, just pointing out that your suggestion that the consumer can decide, which you’ve argued for several times in your post, is untrue. The consumer won’t have that information available to let them decide.
I'm not sure why you think we wouldn't have the information given that we have the most vociferous journalists in the world. Again though harmful produce would be banned.
Asbestos is dangerous so banning it isn't something that occured solely as a result of EU law.
In terms cigarettes (I assume you mean cigarettes in general as tobacco in and of itself itself isn't the most harmful part) this is actually a great example of people making their own choices, with information provided by journalists, scientists and officials. Smoking was very popular and now it's less so to the detriment of large corporations.
You final point isn't quite true. The tariffs they set to you are the same as they set to others via the WTO. The UK wouldn't have their own tariffs set by anyone... We could unilaterally state zero tariffs on all goods, the issue is as stated which is reciprocity.
The problem with leaving the EU has absolutely nothing to do with anything positive about the EU. It's to do with disintegration. Free trade with your neighbour is now a relative certainty in modern trade and the other "freedoms" are things that a government would benefit from having control over.
The issue is I'm fully away that for Brexit to be completely successful and unharmful there needs to be a 15 year disintegration period where we firstly become Norway, then Switzerland, then . That's tailored Canada. When Theresa May came back from losing her majority a cross party negotiating team should have been formed; who would hopefully be honest in saying that it's going to be a lengthy process.