Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Kentonio said:
No they haven't. I don't know why people keep repeating this lie.
Click to expand...

Its not Labour's official position, but is the position of much of their front bench, including John McDonnell, Emily Thornberry, Diane Abbott and Tom Watson. Hardly surprising people think its official policy.
 
EwanI Ted said:
You’ve still yet to explain how the public get to decide whether to buy it or not. I walk into Tescos, buy a chicken sarnie, how do I know if it’s chlorinated chicken or not?
Click to expand...

How do you know that horsemeat isn't currently being used as a meat substitute?
RedChip said:
The chlorination of chicken is a headline but it isn't necessary the core problem. The issue is that using chlorination is a crude way to control contamination, as opposed to cleaner production through the entire chain. It is bit like a heavy dose of Lynx to hide smells rather than shower. The EU would rather the whole process was cleaner.
Click to expand...

That shouldn't be the EU's decision at the expense of everyone's personal freedoms. I agree that chlorinated chicken is a headline and is somewhat irrelevant; I used it as a point as it's something most people have heard of.
stevoc said:
I wouldn't be concentrating on whether or not its harmful, i would be wondering what sort of preparation process it goes through that it needs to be washed in Chlorine.
Click to expand...

I can only think of three reasons that someone wouldn't eat food:

a) It's harmful (regulated by government or self regulated if allergies)
b) It tastes awful (self regulated by market forces)
c) It's morally problematic (if reprehensible it's regulated by government, if merely questionable it's self regulated by market forces)
Wibble said:
As it was by the EU in 1997

Australia and the EU only allow chlorine washing of food in a solution with a max concentration of 10ppm. The US allows up to five times that and the only reason you would allow that is to compensate for appaling hygiene so that you don't have constant salmonella outbreaks.
Click to expand...

So essentially poor people are forced to pay more for products because someone has taken away their freedom of choice for protectionist purposes? I find that morally questionable.
Oldyella said:
It currently is in the EU, due to those scientists, officials and journalists.
Click to expand...

No it isn't and that's the problem. It's currently banned simply because the EU want to restrict competition.
 
Kentonio said:
No they haven't. I don't know why people keep repeating this lie.
Click to expand...
McDonnell said both that Labour would obtain a better deal and that they would campaign for Remain in the election when he was on Andrew Marr on Sunday. He didn't seem enthusiastic about it, going on tone of voice and expression, but that is what he said. It's obviously a stupid position to take but just denying it and claiming it isn't true won't get you anywhere.
 
finneh said:
I can only think of three reasons that someone wouldn't eat food:

a) It's harmful (regulated by government or self regulated if allergies)
b) It tastes awful (self regulated by market forces)
c) It's morally problematic (if reprehensible it's regulated by government, if merely questionable it's self regulated by market forces)
Click to expand...

In the case of Chlorinated Chicken it's possibly any or all of those things.
 
Kentonio said:
Ah interesting, that was something I picked up from some lawyer twitter account yesterday, but I probably misunderstood the context. Could you give a little more information if its not too much bother?
Click to expand...

I'll preface this by stating that I'm not a QC or anything, simply an interested party. (There is a niche area of trading currency/stock which relies on understanding and unpicking cases/appeal cases. For example, a stock could crash because a company loses a case on their items safety, but the appeal could give a different outcome.)

From what I understand, NO court accepts the absolute authority or sovereignity of Parliament. I think this was most strongly alluded to in Jackson et al vs Attorney General in 2005 (House of Lords/Supreme court)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Jackson)_v_Attorney_General This case is very important in this instance, as it's really the first since 1929 or so in which the Judiciary really assault the domain of the executive. It's also significant in that they found it justiciable. (Funnily enough, during this case they also gave the example of Scottish Law set out in the 1707 act as something Parliament couldn't just ramrod.)

So tl;dr:

No court in Either England or Scotland accepts that parliament is absolutely sovereign.
The main issue that has been fought so far is: Is this case justiciable; that is to say, do the court have the power to decide or is it a political problem?

The High Court and Outer Court of Session decided it is not so - whereas the Inner Court of Session surprised us and decided it is so. The bar for the judiciary to get involved is pretty high; the government have a lot of leeway before they will go for this. Both in Scottish and English law. (Assume the law is the same, it's pretty much so). This is why the Inner Courts decision surprised us. It's also the major barrier to a decision against the government in the Supreme Court.

I think the difference in the decision was simply due to the seniority of the judges. The CoS ones decided they wanted to get it on record prior to the Supreme Court ruling, whereas the High Court took the 'safe' route and just passed it upwards.

Ps. Yesterday I said 'flip a coin.' I'm personally starting to lean ever so slightly to a verdict against the government. I think. Whether this is personal bias or not is another matter.
 
711 said:
McDonnell said both that Labour would obtain a better deal and that they would campaign for Remain in the election when he was on Andrew Marr on Sunday. He didn't seem enthusiastic about it, going on tone of voice and expression, but that is what he said. It's obviously a stupid position to take but just denying it and claiming it isn't true won't get you anywhere.
Click to expand...

Corbyn has refused to state what position Labour would campaign for in a second referendum. Personally I think that’s dumb as hell, but that’s his position. I think there is zero chance of him campaigning against his own deal, which is why I won’t vote for Labour this time.
 
finneh said:
How do you know that horsemeat isn't currently being used as a meat substitute?.
Click to expand...

Because its illegal to brand horsemeat as anything but horsemeat & the Government's regulatory framework is there to prevent cross contamination or false labelling. Whats your point??
 
owlo said:
I'll preface this by stating that I'm not a QC or anything, simply an interested party. (There is a niche area of trading currency/stock which relies on understanding and unpicking cases/appeal cases. For example, a stock could crash because a company loses a case on their items safety, but the appeal could give a different outcome.)

From what I understand, NO court accepts the absolute authority or sovereignity of Parliament. I think this was most strongly alluded to in Jackson et al vs Attorney General in 2005 (House of Lords/Supreme court)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Jackson)_v_Attorney_General This case is very important in this instance, as it's really the first since 1929 or so in which the Judiciary really assault the domain of the executive. It's also significant in that they found it justiciable. (Funnily enough, during this case they also gave the example of Scottish Law set out in the 1707 act as something Parliament couldn't just ramrod.)

So tl;dr:

No court in Either England or Scotland accepts that parliament is absolutely sovereign.
The main issue that has been fought so far is: Is this case justiciable; that is to say, do the court have the power to decide or is it a political problem?

The High Court and Outer Court of Session decided it is not so - whereas the Inner Court of Session surprised us and decided it is so. The bar for the judiciary to get involved is pretty high; the government have a lot of leeway before they will go for this. Both in Scottish and English law. (Assume the law is the same, it's pretty much so). This is why the Inner Courts decision surprised us. It's also the major barrier to a decision against the government in the Supreme Court.

I think the difference in the decision was simply due to the seniority of the judges. The CoS ones decided they wanted to get it on record prior to the Supreme Court ruling, whereas the High Court took the 'safe' route and just passed it upwards.

Ps. Yesterday I said 'flip a coin.' I'm personally starting to lean ever so slightly to a verdict against the government. I think. Whether this is personal bias or not is another matter.
Click to expand...

Interesting, thanks for taking the time to share that.
 
Kentonio said:
No they haven't. I don't know why people keep repeating this lie.
Click to expand...

Oh c'mon. I think you absolutely do know why people keep repeating it.

EwanI Ted said:
Its not Labour's official position, but is the position of much of their front bench, including John McDonnell, Emily Thornberry, Diane Abbott and Tom Watson. Hardly surprising people think its official policy.
Click to expand...

711 said:
McDonnell said both that Labour would obtain a better deal and that they would campaign for Remain in the election when he was on Andrew Marr on Sunday. He didn't seem enthusiastic about it, going on tone of voice and expression, but that is what he said. It's obviously a stupid position to take but just denying it and claiming it isn't true won't get you anywhere.
Click to expand...

What's stupid about it? Their policy makes perfect sense to me. No deal off the table completely and then put it back to the people in a confirmatory referendum with the best deal we can get (but still leaving the EU) pitched against remaining. The only stupid thing about it is probably them assuming they can get a better deal when I don't think they can.

Bear in mind this is to come after a general election so those determined to leave the EU with no deal now can vote for the Brexit Party or the Tories who I'm sure will be happy to oblige.
 
CassiusClaymore said:
Oh c'mon. I think you absolutely do know why people keep repeating it.

What's stupid about it? Their policy makes perfect sense to me. No deal off the table completely and then put it back to the people in a confirmatory referendum with the best deal we can get (but still leaving the EU) pitched against remaining. The only stupid thing about it is probably them assuming they can get a better deal when I don't think they can.

Bear in mind this is to come after a general election so those determined to leave the EU with no deal now can vote for the Brexit Party or the Tories who I'm sure will be happy to oblige.
Click to expand...
Imagine sitting down in front of the EU negotiators and telling them you want a better deal and then you're going to campaign against it.

Fair enough @Kentonio we don't know what Corbyn thinks, he won't say, but McDonnell certainly has said that, so to say it's a lie is simply not so.
 
711 said:
Imagine sitting down in front of the EU negotiators and telling them you want a better deal and then you're going to campaign against it.
Click to expand...

"Give us a better deal or we'll give you exactly what you want"
 
711 said:
Fair enough @Kentonio we don't know what Corbyn thinks, he won't say, but McDonnell certainly has said that, so to say it's a lie is simply not so.
Click to expand...

It's a total shit show to be fair, I'm just saying its not official party policy (because Corbyn refuses to give one).
 
711 said:
Imagine sitting down in front of the EU negotiators and telling them you want a better deal and then you're going to campaign against it.
Click to expand...

If Labours 'better deal' involves them staying in the customs union and single market as well as guaranteeing the rights of EU Nationals, what do you think they'll say?

I think a general election is inevitable and the Labour policy is the most democratic of all.

You vote Tories or Brexit Party if you want no deal. You vote Lib Dem if you want to revoke Article 50 and remain. You vote Labour if you want another vote on leaving (with a deal) or remaining. The problem here is the Lib Dems. They have no chance of winning and have seemingly ruled out working with Labour.
 
finneh said:
No it isn't and that's the problem. It's currently banned simply because the EU want to restrict competition.
Click to expand...

No it's not that actually, it's to preserve farming standards. EU believes that relying on PRT (pathogen reduction treatment) is a way of compensating for very poor hygiene standards at other parts of farming and the production chain. This in turn causes more issues.

Also it's not simply about a customer choice because processed food, takeaways, restaurants etc will just go for the cheaper product and people will not have that choice you're talking about. I buy organic at home but I don't often have this choice when eating out.

Check the below for more info on the hygiene issue around cholirnated chicken.

Smores said:


I'll just leave this here so people can actually bother to understand the issue. It's not about quality its about public health, a lot points to these methods causing more salmonella cases.

You might say fine as long as it's labelled clearly i don't have to buy it but when you eat out you're not going to know and if it's cheaper shops will use it.
Click to expand...
 
Smores said:


I'll just leave this here so people can actually bother to understand the issue. It's not about quality its about public health, a lot points to these methods causing more salmonella cases.

You might say fine as long as it's labelled clearly i don't have to buy it but when you eat out you're not going to know and if it's cheaper shops will use it.
Click to expand...

Dunno how anyone could watch that and be ok with allowing chlorinated chicken into the uk market
 
Johnson lies about lying:
Speaking on a visit to NLV Pharos, he was asked if he lied to the Queen when he asked her to prorogue parliament for five weeks. He replied:

"Absolutely not.

The high court in England plainly agrees with us but the supreme court will have to decide.

We need a Queen’s speech, we need to get on and do all sorts of things at a national level."
Click to expand...
 
Kentonio said:
It's a total shit show to be fair, I'm just saying its not official party policy (because Corbyn refuses to give one).
Click to expand...

Labour policy is decided at their conference and that is going to happen in a few weeks.
 
stevoc said:
I wouldn't be concentrating on whether or not its harmful, i would be wondering what sort of preparation process it goes through that it needs to be washed in Chlorine.
Click to expand...

Exactly. People all focus one the headline. But as usual it is the detail which is far more important.
 
EwanI Ted said:
Dont follow. Giving us a better deal makes us more likely to take it, no?
Click to expand...

The EU obviously wants us to remain but they know that realistically this can only happen via a second referendum. I don't think they'll give us the keys to the kingdom but a few ribbons here and there will be needed to dress up May's deal and bring it back as a better one.
 
CassiusClaymore said:
The EU obviously wants us to remain but they know that realistically this can only happen via a second referendum. I don't think they'll give us the keys to the kingdom but a few ribbons here and there will be needed to dress up May's deal and bring it back as a better one.
Click to expand...

If Labour win the election, there'll be a second referendum in any case. If the EU renegoatiate and Labour get a deal they can pass off as their own, Labour will campaign to Leave. If the EU refuse to renegotiate and stick to the original deal, Labour will campaign to Remain. Its absolutely inconceivable that the EU would offer Labour even a marginally better deal in those circumstances.
 
CassiusClaymore said:
The EU obviously wants us to remain but they know that realistically this can only happen via a second referendum. I don't think they'll give us the keys to the kingdom but a few ribbons here and there will be needed to dress up May's deal and bring it back as a better one.
Click to expand...
I dunno, I reckon at this point this EU would prefer if you leave with a shitty deal because you'll probably go back asking to rejoin eventually and without any of the vetoes you currently have. I think the EU will generally be happy with any outcome as long as there's no border and no tariffs on goods.
 
So the position hasn't changed.

There are literally no tangible benefits whatsoever to Brexit, yet still the best part of half the country still want it?

Why are they still pushing this thing so hard without actually selling any benefits?

What is the point of Yellowhammer?
 
EwanI Ted said:
If Labour win the election, there'll be a second referendum in any case. If the EU renegoatiate and Labour get a deal they can pass off as their own, Labour will campaign to Leave. If the EU refuse to renegotiate and stick to the original deal, Labour will campaign to Remain. Its absolutely inconceivable that the EU would offer Labour even a marginally better deal in those circumstances.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said it'll be Mays deal with some ribbons on.
 
Smores said:


I'll just leave this here so people can actually bother to understand the issue. It's not about quality its about public health, a lot points to these methods causing more salmonella cases.

You might say fine as long as it's labelled clearly i don't have to buy it but when you eat out you're not going to know and if it's cheaper shops will use it.
Click to expand...

Good video and I take the point about the supply chain. I suppose it comes down to, are the laws we have in place going to protect from an unsafe product? That video would suggest no, if it is correct. Then, once again, it’s down to people’s choice.
 
Sassy Colin said:
So the position hasn't changed.

There are literally no tangible benefits whatsoever to Brexit, yet still the best part of half the country still want it?

Why are they still pushing this thing so hard without actually selling any benefits?

What is the point of Yellowhammer?
Click to expand...

For three reasons:

1. "We won you lost, get over it and get on with it".
2. Racism. They (incorrectly) think it will mean less foreigners.
3. It's a cult. They've become so entrenched in hating their nose that despite recently learning that it's an important feature of their face, they have no motivation or desire to stop it being cut off like they requested 3 years ago. So stop asking and sheer it off already.
 
Last edited:
Sassy Colin said:
So the position hasn't changed.

There are literally no tangible benefits whatsoever to Brexit, yet still the best part of half the country still want it?

Why are they still pushing this thing so hard without actually selling any benefits?

What is the point of Yellowhammer?
Click to expand...
It sucks admitting you’re wrong, and evidently people would rather become raging patriots and stick their fingers in their ears rather than admit it
 
EwanI Ted said:
If Labour win the election, there'll be a second referendum in any case. If the EU renegoatiate and Labour get a deal they can pass off as their own, Labour will campaign to Leave. If the EU refuse to renegotiate and stick to the original deal, Labour will campaign to Remain. Its absolutely inconceivable that the EU would offer Labour even a marginally better deal in those circumstances.
Click to expand...

I stopped following this all a while ago as I'd accepted the inevitable no deal. I'm just curious why you think Labour would negotiate a deal with the EU and then push to leave?
 
Kentonio said:
Corbyn has refused to state what position Labour would campaign for in a second referendum. Personally I think that’s dumb as hell, but that’s his position. I think there is zero chance of him campaigning against his own deal, which is why I won’t vote for Labour this time.
Click to expand...

You have to assume the new Labour deal would be a BRINO deal and similar to remaining, but without the voting rights; hence if there were only two choices on the ballot, i.e. remain ( but it would still need to involve revoking A50) and the new Labour Leave deal. Therefore its reasonable to assume remainers would vote for remain, and Leavers would not vote at all, because all they are offered is BRINO.

"Heads I win, tails you lose" sort of thing, it wont solve a thing, except that Jeremy by that time, i.e. following a GE, has got his wish to be PM, which is what his game plan has been all along and he will take any kind of personal humiliation, e.g. by having his party disagree with him, as long as he finishes up in No.10.

If any new referendum is forthcoming then presumably it will have to have only two choices on the paper if its to stand comparison with, or replace the first referendum in terms of legitimacy. Hence it has to be the choices as above, or be Labours new deal versus Leave with No deal. This second referendum option of leave only choices, could claim to have legitimacy because Remain lost the first ballot and it could be argued should not appear on the ballot again, hence the next referendum it could be argued should be really be only on the manner of our leaving?
 
pocco said:
I stopped following this all a while ago as I'd accepted the inevitable no deal. I'm just curious why you think Labour would negotiate a deal with the EU and then push to leave?
Click to expand...

Labour have said that if the only deal on the table is May's agreement they'll campaign to Remain in a second referendum. We can assume then that if the EU refuse to renegotiate the deal with Labour, that's what Labour will then do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.