Getting brexit done!

[fuchsntf]

51 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Hell no, Greece would have been able to devalue it's currency and boost exports and tourism if it weren't in the Euro. Disaster for them.

So would of still been stuck in the Quagmire of Political & business corruption,like always.

i am not Posting from blind  ignorance, but joining the EU hid alot of previous (before EU-alliance) long-term Politica/Business misconduct  not only Greece...

Then the countries found a "blame" platform, trying  to reflect & hide their own internal chaos, & mismanagement.

[Jon the Hat]

13 minutes ago, fuchsntf said:

So would of still been stuck in the Quagmire of Political & business corruption,like always.

i am not Posting from blind  ignorance, but joining the EU hid alot of previous (before EU-alliance) long-term Politica/Business misconduct  not only Greece...

Then the countries found a "blame" platform, trying  to reflect & hide their own internal chaos, & mismanagement.

Absolutely agree their economy was not perfect, but they switched one set of problems for another and handed over their sovereignty in the process.  I'm pretty sure if they had their time again they wouldn't sign up at all.

[fuchsntf]

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Absolutely agree their economy was not perfect, but they switched one set of problems for another and handed over their sovereignty in the process.  I'm pretty sure if they had their time again they wouldn't sign up at all.

Too be honest, none of the countries would , if Left to the man on the street...Worker to businessman..

I reckon ..The Refugee ( Not immigrants), problem, Covid- problem, has shown again the EU-inadequecies, to leave Fellow Member in den sh*t ,

Abs incapable of being able work together, when Major issues are presented.....

Edited 26 January 2021 by fuchsntf

[Kopfkino]

2 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Why do people assume this would just work when the biggest cause of their fiscal problems was corrupt governance, not being in the EU, it's just that since they've joined the issues that were already under the surface have been exposed to the light.  It's never going to be black and white but not joining would have allowed the corruption to continue unchecked at the cost of Greece's working class surely?

It’s a good point. Have a rep point for saying something interesting. For sure, being outside of the euro and EU would have given Greece greater ability to paper over the cracks and not confront some of the structural issues.

 

However, it seems rather rosy to manage to frame it in terms of being part of the euro/EU meaning this problem was highlighted. I don’t doubt it helped but being part of the EU should, in theory, have gone a way to preventing the problem but Greece fiddled its fiscal numbers to keep itself within Maastricht rules. The checks on Greece didn’t work, meanwhile being part of the euro allowed it to borrow far more easily than it otherwise would have. Maybe had there been a greater borrowing constraint as a result of not being in the euro, there may have been greater focus on fiscal responsibility. Idk.

 

Corruption is a hard thing to measure or even define but looking at the Corruption Perceptions Index, corruption got worse during the crisis and is little better now than before the crisis and is worse than in the 90s (idk what it was when Greece joined in 81). The CoE’s 2015 recommendations were pretty lightweight and the report from last year found only half had been implemented thus far. Tax evasion was a big problem and they’ve made bigger strides there for sure. But again, I fail to really see

Tbh, I don’t know what the ‘biggest cause’ was, I’d be surprised if anybody could credibly isolate causal variables for that. You can’t escape the fact that corruption and tax evasion were big factors. You also can’t escape the fact that being part of the euro was also a major factor in both the cause and the ability to respond.

[RobHawk]

Are we winning yet?

[Rob1742]

23 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Surely if you explain that the implications to the owner of the product of saying "it's just 20 stores" will be the loss of the whole deal they will change their answer?

The company doesn’t have the resource and has made a decision not to invest in it, despite the implications of losing all the business.

 

The paperwork and red tape involved is ridiculous, it’s not a one off, it’s with every delivery, it’s not easy and companies have to decide on whether they employ someone to do it or walk away from it. It’s that much work involved. 
 

The company is huge by the way, a brand that is in every major supermarket and corner shop. 
 

I myself have walked away from some export business as we don’t have the resource and the profit of what we are doing won’t pay for the resource needed.

 

There are lots of things companies do at a very low margin just to keep things ticking over for everyone involved. But once you then add a cost to that, it then doesn’t become worthwhile.

 

It’s a real problem out there for business.

[bovril]

EU really shitting the bed now and sending out the big guns (middle-ranking obscure MEPs).

 

Is there an 'other' option after brexit or remain? 

[Innovindil]

The irony of the EU going mental over UK manufacturing. Could not make it up.

[foxile5]

1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

The irony of the EU going mental over UK manufacturing. Could not make it up.

I was never much of a brexiteer - left wing and all - and so say this with a very odd feeling : the EU are being ****ing embarrassing here. 

 

They still think they should have preferential treatment from a company based in Britain when they've made it so clear we receive none? 

[Innovindil]

1 minute ago, foxile5 said:

I was never much of a brexiteer - left wing and all - and so say this with a very odd feeling : the EU are being ****ing embarrassing here. 

 

They still think they should have preferential treatment from a company based in Britain when they've made it so clear we receive none? 

Too right. Flip the script, have us ordering 3 months late and complaing that the EU was getting it's order fulfilled from EU facilities before us and it wasn't on. Wonder what the reply would be eh. 

[foxile5]

1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

Too right. Flip the script, have us ordering 3 months late and complaing that the EU was getting it's order fulfilled from EU facilities before us and it wasn't on. Wonder what the reply would be eh. 

Especially when they had the option and decided to create red tape. In a pandemic. Baffling. 

[Nalis]

15 hours ago, bovril said:

EU really shitting the bed now and sending out the big guns (middle-ranking obscure MEPs).

 

Is there an 'other' option after brexit or remain? 

Sums it up for me.

 

I've never been a Brexiteer (and never will) but I definitely became more of a EU sceptic over the past 4-5 years.

[January47]

13 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Too right. Flip the script, have us ordering 3 months late and complaing that the EU was getting it's order fulfilled from EU facilities before us and it wasn't on. Wonder what the reply would be eh. 

Originally the Germans wanted to purchase for themselves but Merkel insisted it was via a centralised eu system. i suspect the political objective of showing european unity in a time of brexit was one of the reasons behind it. They are now copping the flak for this decision causing in delay in the suply which is leading, quite predictably, to the politicians and bureaucrats trying to shift the blame to the suppliers.

[bovril]

28 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Sums it up for me.

 

I've never been a Brexiteer (and never will) but I definitely became more of a EU sceptic over the past 4-5 years.

I would've been ok leaving the political structures but retaining some kind of customs union. And it's disappointing the whole debate on our trading relationship got reduced to "do you like the EU?".

[David Guiza]

It does worry me that the whole argument regarding the EU and vaccine is just going to add yet further fuel to the fire that every aspect of the EU influence is/was bureaucratic nonsense, this in turn means that stories like the below will be ignored/scoffed at.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/09/pesticide-believed-kill-bees-authorised-use-england-eu-farmers  

 

 

[Spudulike]

8 minutes ago, bovril said:

I would've been ok leaving the political structures but retaining some kind of customs union. And it's disappointing the whole debate on our trading relationship got reduced to "do you like the EU?".

That's exactly it but seemed impossible (4 pillars and all that). 

 

Dark forces are at work. Who were the German 'sources' that leaked to the press about the 8% efficacy of the Oxford-As vaccine? 

[Innovindil]

7 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

It does worry me that the whole argument regarding the EU and vaccine is just going to add yet further fuel to the fire that every aspect of the EU influence is/was bureaucratic nonsense, this in turn means that stories like the below will be ignored/scoffed at.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/09/pesticide-believed-kill-bees-authorised-use-england-eu-farmers

 

 

Why shouldn't it be ignored/scoffed at? EU countries themselves have approved it for emergency use, which is exactly what we've done. Hardly going out of our way to kill the bees are we. 

 

A Defra spokesperson said: “Emergency authorisations for pesticides are only granted in exceptional circumstances where diseases or pests cannot be controlled by any other reasonable means. Emergency authorisations are used by countries across Europe.

“Pesticides can only be used where we judge there to be no harm to human health and animal health, and no unacceptable risks to the environment. The temporary use of this product is strictly limited to a non-flowering crop and will be tightly controlled to minimise any potential risk to pollinators.”

[bovril]

9 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

That's exactly it but seemed impossible (4 pillars and all that). 

 

Dark forces are at work. Who were the German 'sources' that leaked to the press about the 8% efficacy of the Oxford-As vaccine? 

It's not impossible, we just went for the hardest possible Brexit so the swivel-eyed loons didn't desert the Conservatives.

 

Second sentence is a bit paranoid. I think German media is calmer over this than ours in the UK.

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Why shouldn't it be ignored/scoffed at? EU countries themselves have approved it for emergency use, which is exactly what we've done. Hardly going out of our way to kill the bees are we. 

 

A Defra spokesperson said: “Emergency authorisations for pesticides are only granted in exceptional circumstances where diseases or pests cannot be controlled by any other reasonable means. Emergency authorisations are used by countries across Europe.

“Pesticides can only be used where we judge there to be no harm to human health and animal health, and no unacceptable risks to the environment. The temporary use of this product is strictly limited to a non-flowering crop and will be tightly controlled to minimise any potential risk to pollinators.”

You need to have made your mind up before the end of the article silly. 
It’s a bit like the lorry drivers working hours, that were relaxed temporarily. As soon as the word brexit was attached too it, it becomes a hot topic. The fact that it’s been done in emergency situations before is neither here nor there.

[David Guiza]

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Why shouldn't it be ignored/scoffed at? EU countries themselves have approved it for emergency use, which is exactly what we've done. Hardly going out of our way to kill the bees are we. 

 

A Defra spokesperson said: “Emergency authorisations for pesticides are only granted in exceptional circumstances where diseases or pests cannot be controlled by any other reasonable means. Emergency authorisations are used by countries across Europe.

“Pesticides can only be used where we judge there to be no harm to human health and animal health, and no unacceptable risks to the environment. The temporary use of this product is strictly limited to a non-flowering crop and will be tightly controlled to minimise any potential risk to pollinators.”

I posted an earlier article from the Guardian as the BBC from yesterday seemingly wouldn't format properly (turns out the Guardian one didn't either). Here's one from the BBC yesterday which illustrates my point better. It's a matter that we're unlikely to ever see eye to eye on, because I view the below as the Government using their first opportunity to cut corners and cut red tape, and you will undoubtedly see it as the Government following normal protocol that would have happened regardless of Brexit. The EU had/have plenty of faults, but their Environmental record isn't one of them and I do not trust a Government that appoints Michael Gove as Environment secretary to continue the good work.

 

Two years ago, the EU's ban was supported by then-Environment Secretary Michael Gove, who said the weight of evidence was "greater than previously understood". Unless the evidence changed, he said, the restrictions would be maintained post-Brexit.

 

The government says the change in policy is based on "new evidence". But, so far, they haven't made this science public.

 

Neurobiologist and environmental pharmacologist Dr Chris Connolly said that, since 2018, when neonicotinoids were banned in the EU, around 400 papers had been published looking into thiamethoxam, and none said they were less harmful.

 

He said he could be in favour of using it: "But rarely, and when it's really needed - when it's an emergency. It's not an emergency if you apply for it before an emergency."

 

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

You need to have made your mind up before the end of the article silly. 
It’s a bit like the lorry drivers working hours, that were relaxed temporarily. As soon as the word brexit was attached too it, it becomes a hot topic. The fact that it’s been done in emergency situations before is neither here nor there.

It clearly works both ways, Strokes. Whenever the EU did anything remotely positive in the build up to Brexit, or further back, it would be dismissed instantly by sceptics with comments like 'we used to do this anyway'. As usual the truth will end up being somewhere in the middle. The Tories aren't going to bring back asbestos building materials and arm the under 12s now that the nanny state EU have had their red tape cut, but neither are they going to stick to every previous regulation/guideline that were in place for logical and substantiated reasons. 

[Innovindil]

2 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

I posted an earlier article from the Guardian as the BBC from yesterday seemingly wouldn't format properly (turns out the Guardian one didn't either). Here's one from the BBC yesterday which illustrates my point better. It's a matter that we're unlikely to ever see eye to eye on, because I view the below as the Government using their first opportunity to cut corners and cut red tape, and you will undoubtedly see it as the Government following normal protocol that would have happened regardless of Brexit. The EU had/have plenty of faults, but their Environmental record isn't one of them and I do not trust a Government that appoints Michael Gove as Environment secretary to continue the good work.

 

Two years ago, the EU's ban was supported by then-Environment Secretary Michael Gove, who said the weight of evidence was "greater than previously understood". Unless the evidence changed, he said, the restrictions would be maintained post-Brexit.

 

The government says the change in policy is based on "new evidence". But, so far, they haven't made this science public.

 

Neurobiologist and environmental pharmacologist Dr Chris Connolly said that, since 2018, when neonicotinoids were banned in the EU, around 400 papers had been published looking into thiamethoxam, and none said they were less harmful.

 

He said he could be in favour of using it: "But rarely, and when it's really needed - when it's an emergency. It's not an emergency if you apply for it before an emergency."

 

It clearly works both ways, Strokes. Whenever the EU did anything remotely positive in the build up to Brexit, or further back, it would be dismissed instantly by sceptics with comments like 'we used to do this anyway'. As usual the truth will end up being somewhere in the middle. The Tories aren't going to bring back asbestos building materials and arm the under 12s now that the nanny state EU have had their red tape cut, but neither are they going to stick to every previous regulation/guideline that were in place for logical and substantiated reasons. 

The bolded part. And another quote from the same article. 

 

The pesticide will be authorised for use if there is a large enough outbreak of the disease. And it can only be used for a period of up to 120 days. Around a dozen other EU countries, including France and Germany, have also agreed emergency permits.

 

... What am I missing? It's approved for emergency use only. Same as your precious EU. So... One, where is the problem, two, what on earth has this to do with the government diverting from eu environmental rules? 

[David Guiza]

9 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

The bolded part. And another quote from the same article. 

 

The pesticide will be authorised for use if there is a large enough outbreak of the disease. And it can only be used for a period of up to 120 days. Around a dozen other EU countries, including France and Germany, have also agreed emergency permits.

 

... What am I missing? It's approved for emergency use only. Same as your precious EU. So... One, where is the problem, two, what on earth has this to do with the government diverting from eu environmental rules? 

The trigger fingered Government providing 120 day use of a pesticide that previously required a special permit to be used, and which we already possessed. It's also a wider point that promises were made that we would continue AND expand the positive work of the EU Environmentally and yet the Environmental Bill is being delayed again, for a third time. 

The lack of the transparency of the Government, again, whereby they reference 'new evidence' but are either unable or unwilling to provide the same, or both. The lack of scrutiny on a weak Government from a weak opposition. 

 

Yes, in this instance, it's somewhat hypocritical given that other countries, such as France had/have been provided special grants by the EU in any event, but my original point was that I am concerned that much of the EU's good work will be easily dismissed with stories like the current vaccine row and that could be potentially damaging. Sincerely hope it isn't a baby out with the bathwater situation, but I fear it will be as the Government seek to flex their new found muscle. 

 

[Strokes]

38 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

 

 

It clearly works both ways, Strokes. Whenever the EU did anything remotely positive in the build up to Brexit, or further back, it would be dismissed instantly by sceptics with comments like 'we used to do this anyway'. As usual the truth will end up being somewhere in the middle. The Tories aren't going to bring back asbestos building materials and arm the under 12s now that the nanny state EU have had their red tape cut, but neither are they going to stick to every previous regulation/guideline that were in place for logical and substantiated reasons. 

Yeah it does and I imagine most of us are guilty of it.

I’m sure there will be many pros and cons in the months and years ahead. The leavers will highlight the pro’s and the remainers the cons. The leavers will ignore the cons and the remainers will ignore the pros. So what’s the point in even discussing it?

[David Guiza]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Yeah it does and I imagine most of us are guilty of it.

I’m sure there will be many pros and cons in the months and years ahead. The leavers will highlight the pro’s and the remainers the cons. The leavers will ignore the cons and the remainers will ignore the pros. So what’s the point in even discussing it?

True, back to the Birds you Fancy off the Telly thread it is 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Yeah it does and I imagine most of us are guilty of it.

I’m sure there will be many pros and cons in the months and years ahead. The leavers will highlight the pro’s and the remainers the cons. The leavers will ignore the cons and the remainers will ignore the pros. So what’s the point in even discussing it?

 

5 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

True, back to the Birds you Fancy off the Telly thread it is 

...I really hope that the public at large haven't reached the point where discourse has become entirely "Us v Them" like this.

 

Current evidence, however, does seem to be that way.