I can buy Cheddar in France that's made in Paris, there's probably another reason
EU Referendum | UK residents vote today.
- Thread starter 711
- Start date
- Status
I can buy Cheddar in France that's made in Paris, there's probably another reason
You wont be able to if the uk decided to approach the eu and have the name banned unless it's made in the uk, I doubt the uk is as petty though
Cheddar's been made all over the world for a century, so it doesn't have protected status. Other British cheeses like Lancashire do, in the same way as Feta and Halloumi do.
The Lancashire cheesemakers don't regard protection as stupidity, they want it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_food_and_drink_products_with_protected_status
Come on Leave, get your act together
The Lancashire cheesemakers don't regard protection as stupidity, they want it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_food_and_drink_products_with_protected_status
Come on Leave, get your act together
List of foods the UK has approached the EU to have the name banned unless it's made in the uk
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/protected-food-name-scheme-uk-registered-products
No surprise there, the cheesemaker this morning wasn't happy, just a wild guess but I imagine the eu has bigger fish to fry than protecting cheese but I imagine this is easy to deal with.
Yes, but not Arbroath Smokies. 
Yes, but not Arbroath Smokies.
No
I have to go to special shops and pay over the odds for uk products
Where are you?
Haarlem
Where has this line come from, that people are claiming Brexit is going to turn the UK into North Korea? I've seen it a few times on here now, best straw man I've seen in ages.
Never lived in Holland , but in certain areas of France where there's a higher British population, you can buy a limited range of UK products in normal supermarkets at reasonable prices.
Although €9 for a big jar of Marmite is way over the top (probably cos no-one likes it)
That could all change with import duties and the like.
I pay 2 euros for a small jar. Wine is a lot cheaper than in the uk though. I just wish I could get snaky stuff like scotch eggs and pies from the supermarket
Where has this line come from, that people are claiming Brexit is going to turn the UK into North Korea? I've seen it a few times on here now, best straw man I've seen in ages.
All part of the scaremongering. No one to sell to, isolated, no imports, no trading, no-one will like us. Just a bunch of lies
I am not aware that i have insulted anyone, even you. Although your willingness to misrepresent most posts you come across does make it difficult for one to remain civil. Fine, you don't agree with the Leave campaign, but that should not preclude you from being respectful to others.
I was genuinely confused by your earlier post, its allusions to not trading with countries made no sense. I have no idea where you came by such a notion, hence the head scratching remark.
Clearly my standing has suffered around here, if that is what you imagine. But if i have made the error of repeating erroneous information from yesterday's reporting, i hold my hand up.
Have you read either the Treasury or OECD reports? How would you assess their assumptions and methodology?
Last edited:
I'm not sure which treasury report you refer to - I have read some of the bits they have put out and it is undoubtedly skewed in favour of the arguments they wish to push forward so no different to anybody else with an agenda in this. With an issue such as this you are going to struggle to find many impartial people / institutions.
I would suggest the OECD would look on the face of it to be quite impartial in that the majority (just over half) of their funding comes from outside the EU countries and that the UK comtribution would be unchanged regardless of an in/out vote so at least compared to most people they can claim not to have a horse in the race - If anything perhaps OECD membership would be more important post brexit given that their main thing is promoting world trade
Cameron quoting the TUC, now that's one for the archives.
Where am I misrepresenting posts, I keep asking the question and still no-one can answer it, which are the countries these fantastic trade deals are going to be done with , not the EU because they will less favourable terms, not the USA because the UK may be at the back of the queue, Hannan wants to be able to deal with Australia, New Zealand, Canada , his words, not mine because they speak English - he also says that the cost of freight is now not prohibitive - now I am in international trading and shipping etc and i can assure you that it costs a lot more to ship to NZ than to France from the Uk nevermind the time delay.
Then he goes on to spout ridiculous things like Japan doesn't want to join China. Japan, India and China were almost non-existent in international trade back in the 50s and 60s .
Please just tell me the name of the country or countries with whom these deals will be made, someone in Leave must know.
Of course the UK will not stop trading but under much less favourable conditions
I admit the Treasury report is a bit long for my attention span nowadays, but I think it's looking purely at the effects on trade volumes that changes in tariffs would make, and the tax implications of that.
It doesn't take into account reduction in growth due to lower immigration (which I want, but I also want to know the costs), relocation of any businesses to outside the UK, and lower foreign investment. For instance a Chinese or Japanese operation wanting to build a manufacturing plant to export all over Europe might be more likely to choose a location within the dreaded TTIP, and under all the associated regulations, rather than the UK.
It's arguable the Treasury report underestimated the costs of leaving in many ways.
How then would you describe the present arrangement?
Rather, we wish to better regulate the flow of immigration and channel its numbers more effectively, so as to avoid unnecessary pressure on communities. It also should not be an excuse for the government and the business community to shirk their responsibilities, be this in regard to training and education of the existing population, or wages and conditions for all those who make up the labour market.
If freedom of movement had the option of controls once numbers reach a certain point, i think many would be happy with that. For example, if the net figure of EU migrants went past 120,000 the possibility of refusal might exist. Maybe such comes across as unreasonable or Daily Mail-esque to the rest of you, i don't know.[/QUOTE]
The comment about Japan and China was in regard to the present day, not the 50s and 60s. Hannan used thema s an example of a single country in the modern world trading with others. Why shouldn't he want to trade with Canada, Australia and New Zealand? We 'd probably be able to reach FTAs with all three far sooner than the EU, going by its record.
You speak as if the imposition of tariffs is a foregone conclusion, perhaps you can point me toward the evidence for so strong a belief?
Yes he was referring to the present day but in the days when the UK were trading with the Commonwealth, those countries as super trading nations weren't there. People in Australia might have bought a Ford Anglia in those days, they're more likely to buy a Nissan or some other Far Eastern car nowadays.
The problem is that no-one knows what will happen for sure on both sides regarding tariffs, currency devaluation, foreign investment etc - but taking an educated guess it will not be in the Uk's favour and if someone can prove the oppoiste I would be delighted for the UK
Got my polling card yesterday, I feel so enfranchised! Ye Brits sure are efficient
Seriously though, sway me - I am well on the Stay side but will always listen to cogent arguments. Leave folks, what do I not know about that could make me vote Leave?
Here is one thing to consider
Look at the spending pie chart for the EU budget and then look at the EU GDP contribution of those areas we spend on and ask yourself are we getting value for money and spending in the right areas? Particularly on CAP where for example I remember Ed Milliband who is urging a remain vote by the way stated that we spend 40% of the EU budget on CAP which produces 1.5% to 2.0% of the EU's GDP.
Now compare that to R+D spending.
We all know why CAP still exists and that it really shouldn't any more. So how long can an organisation continue to do this and waste hundreds of billions of Euros?
The main reason I am considering voting leave is that there appears to be a wilful determined ignorance surrounding the stupidity of the EU's spending priorities because the main players can't deal with the internal dissent that making the right decisions would cause. This handicaps the EU in world terms because it can't negotiate a sensible future course of action gauging net economic benefit to the majority of EU citizens. In fact the opposite happens and pandering to the narrow vested interests makes trade deals to the disadvantage of the majority. Which is why Europe has the slowest long term growth rates of the major economic zones.
By the time we finally corral all the countries into taking a common position its ten years too late. The way the EU works isn't actually working at all.
I love this idea of a trade queue. Think about it for a few seconds. Is America incapable of negotiating more than one trade deal at a time? The whole idea is absurd but then Obama lol he's got a nice smile and looks dapper in a suit.
It never ceases to amaze me how unquestioning of things people are. Trade queue lol. fecking trade queue.
I like the idea also being put out that it would be quicker to negotiate a trade deal between the EU and the US, than it would between the UK and the US. So the argument is that it would be easier to complete a trade deal involving a trade bloc of 28 countries on one side - 28 separate interests, than it would between the UK and the US. Lol but remember the queue that we'd be at the back of.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/eu-visa-romania-bulgaria-trade-ceta-1.3526513
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...elgium-say-they-wont-cant-ratify-treaty.shtml
It never ceases to amaze me how unquestioning of things people are. Trade queue lol. fecking trade queue.
I like the idea also being put out that it would be quicker to negotiate a trade deal between the EU and the US, than it would between the UK and the US. So the argument is that it would be easier to complete a trade deal involving a trade bloc of 28 countries on one side - 28 separate interests, than it would between the UK and the US. Lol but remember the queue that we'd be at the back of.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/eu-visa-romania-bulgaria-trade-ceta-1.3526513
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...elgium-say-they-wont-cant-ratify-treaty.shtml
The US are perfectly capable of negotiating more than one deal at a time, but what they've suggested is that we're not going to be a priority. I don't see what's ridiculous about that. We will want to get a deal done urgently, but they might not particularly care, and might be happy to take it at a slow pace.
Exactly. Also the US want the UK to remain in the EU. If the UK show them the middle finger to that then why should they hurry up in making a trade deal? It's not as if the EU/US can't live a couple of years without a trade deal with the UK
For one thing, the US previously put on ice multiple bilateral trade deal talks with other countries whilst they focused on the big regional ones that they saw as more beneficial. In other words, they put them to the back of the queue. For another, Obama's comment was basically a riposte to those in the Leave camp that were saying "European trade is dying anyway, we'll get a far better deal more quickly from the likes of the US that offsets any losses there". Given that he's President of that country, he was more than entitled to say "actually, that's up to us, not you".
And we are entitled to say the same thing about his opinion on the referendum.
BBC:
Obama argued that he had a right to respond to the claims of Brexit campaigners that Britain would easily be able to negotiate a fresh trade deal with the US. “They are voicing an opinion about what the United States is going to do, I figured you might want to hear from the president of the United States what I think the United States is going to do."
“And on that matter, for example, I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done”.
He added: “The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.”
I can't think how he could have been any clearer.
Never said you weren't, and it's why he was politically pretty brilliant in couching his intervention in something that would be in the control of the US.
He could have repeated it when asked rather than back tracking, that would have been clearer.
I'm sure the US govt wants us to stay in the EU.
I'm sure that if we leave they will deal with it and the UK in mutual self interest.
Its not in their self interest to admit that before the referendum though hence his comments. It is not even that hard to work out.
Of course since he will not be President for much longer, there will be no guarantee that the new President (be it Hillary or Drumpf) will not take a different view. If a trade agreement with a newly brexited UK would hold some economic benefits for the US, then a different President might not view the UK as at the back of the cue. Not to mention we could actually negotiate with Europe and the UK at the same time, despite Obama's claim that we can't.
Hillary's office has echoed the sentiments, but yeah, Leavers are in the position of hoping for a Trump or Cruz Presidency at the moment.
It is also possible that the EU could push the US to the back of the queue. A controversial TTIP isn't likely to take preference over the long term integrity of the European Union after all.
Transatlantic trade shall continue regardless.
Transatlantic trade shall continue regardless.
The US is the EU's top trading partner. The UK is the US's 6th top trading partner. The EU needs the US much more than the US needs the UK in trade.
Nobody is saying that the EU is perfect. There are plenty of daft regulations or what have you in the EU. However, being in the EU is still much better for the UK than the alternatives.
As far back of the queue or whatever, I think the important thing is whether the UK will be in a stronger position as part of the single European market than if the UK were to go it alone. It's a bit naive to think that economies won't prioritise a market such as the EU over a much smaller market like the UK on its own. It shouldn't take a speech from Obama to figure that one out. Some of the arguments coming from the Brexit camp are just bizarre imo.
As far back of the queue or whatever, I think the important thing is whether the UK will be in a stronger position as part of the single European market than if the UK were to go it alone. It's a bit naive to think that economies won't prioritise a market such as the EU over a much smaller market like the UK on its own. It shouldn't take a speech from Obama to figure that one out. Some of the arguments coming from the Brexit camp are just bizarre imo.
I can send you a link to the PDF if you change your mind.
Should you do so, you'll be able to see why No 11 has muddled its figures in recent years. They do silly things, like calculate the impact upon household income in 2030, by using 2016 numbers. It also underestimates the future costs of EU membership, although i've remarked upon that before.
The OECD report, on the other hand, assumes that the UK will reached a trade deal with European partners before 2023. Neither does the organisation's future scenario involve FTAs with anyone else. The scenario is intentionally weighted to produce a negative picture.
Europe doesn't need TTIP though, which is a US initiative. And there will be political concerns to contend with if Brexit becomes a reality. The Guardian's Politics Weekly podcast addressed some of these, including the shift in power it would represent. Countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark, have heretofore been allied with the UK on areas of policy.
No, it doesn't need TTIP, but it's not going to stick the US at the back of the metaphorical queue. But even if it rejects TTIP, some form of deal with the US will be one of the EU's primary aims, due to the fact they are major trading partners.
Such is the power of a trading bloc.
Consider this - it takes two to tango. If the UK can supposedly sign all these superior trade deals with the Commonwealth and other countries, why aren't companies, organisations and countries falling over themselves to encourage a Brexit so they can get these sweet, superior deals? The US wants the UK to stay in. The Aussies want the UK to stay in.
- Status