Brexit

Barney

'every reason I've heard is just false.' Mrs Grey - the food waste (ugly fruit / vegetables) was not false. It was a (stupid) decision made by the EU and later rescinded so I dont see how you can make that statement. It may not be a reason to leave now but you asked for an example and I provided one in the limited time I had.

It will be good for everyone if this issue is sorted sooner rather than later. Debates on this topic do get fractious as I think we are all a bit entrenched in our views. I am however happy to listen to the reasons for staying even though they are all wrong!!

MrsGrey

Barney said:

Mrs Grey - the food waste (ugly fruit / vegetables) was not false. It was a (stupid) decision made by the EU and later rescinded so I dont see how you can make that statement. It may not be a reason to leave now but you asked for an example and I provided one in the limited time I had.

Well, the fruit and veg example came about like this:

You said you 'switched to leave' for reasons including 'EU put such tight standards (unnecessarily so) on fruit and veg that there is huge wastage'

This is in the present tense. As in, it happens now.

So as a matter of fact, there isn't huge waste as a result, now. So it's false to say so.

Also (and this bit is my opinion) it is a false reason for leaving now, since, as you point out (and I am happy to acknowledge) was something that happened in the past and no longer pertains.

Of course, you are perfectly entitled to want to leave because of a mistake that was made in the past and since put right. But, I disagree that it is a valid reason.

It's not the first time a law was introduced for a good reason (in any country - I can give you UK examples) that ended up having unforeseen (and unwanted) consequences and was subsequently amended.

imo it's not an indication of any particular ineptitude or ill-intent on the part of the EU.

Barney

I will have to disagree on your last comment - what possible reason could there be for banning food even though it is perfectly edible thus leading to huge amounts of wastage? it is both ineptitude and ill-intent in my view.

TheMadcapLaughs

Moojor said:

anyone see Rees mogg or whatever his name is Twitter comments. Basically in 2016 he tweets we need to leave because we have no power in the EU and now he tweets that if we have to stay for a bit we should use our power to veto everything the EU wants to do....So straight up lie back in 2016 about us being powerless in the EU....

I think, although I may be wrong, what Rees-Mogg is suggesting is that we be as disruptive as we can. An analogy would be that a school pupil can do nothing to influence the curriculum or the schools internal rules and regulations but can be thoroughly unruly and disruptive to the point of expulsion.

TheMadcapLaughs

MIAHammer said:

ammerinaberdeen said:

I’m just an ordinary bloke but if we are, as I feel we are, betrayed by the elite parliamentarians telling us ‘They’ know better than us! Beware!

Isn’t that the reason they were voted into power. They are meant to know better than us. Otherwise what’s the point?

That is the point, but there is also that well known phrase "fit for purpose". In any walk of life, if you gave a group of intelligent people a single task, a task that they have promised to fulfil, a task that they are committed to (apparently), and they have up to three years to successfully complete this task, if that group of people failed to deliver that task would you not question their capabilities. Would you not feel let down?

MrsGrey

Barney said:

I will have to disagree on your last comment - what possible reason could there be for banning food even though it is perfectly edible thus leading to huge amounts of wastage? it is both ineptitude and ill-intent in my view.

Food was never 'banned'. That's lazy tabloid reporting.

If you look up the background you will see that the regulations were introduced as to way to standardise the classification of fruit and veg. The good intent was to ensure customers couldn't be ripped off with higher prices being charged for so called 'class 1' fruit when really it was no such thing. It was also designed to help people by ensuring that class 1 apples in Waitrose were of the same standard as Class 1 apples in Tesco.

The issue about wastage occurred when a consignment described as one thing (eg class 2 kiwis fruit) turned out not to be that thing (didn't meet the standards to be classified as class 2), and therefore couldn't be sold as class 2.

That was the unforseen/unintended consequence - the absence of an additional 'lower' category, or a contingency option for preventing the food being wasted. And that's what they fixed, in the end.

MrsGrey

TheMadcapLaughs said:

In any walk of life, if you gave a group of intelligent people a single task, a task that they have promised to fulfil, a task that they are committed to (apparently), and they have up to three years to successfully complete this task, if that group of people failed to deliver that task would you not question their capabilities. Would you not feel let down?

Not automatically.

I'd want to look at the circumstances.

TheMadcapLaughs

This is a good article by a remainer in regards to current (I.E. EU) agricultural policy and possible future "home grown" agricultural policy:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/10/brexit-leaving-eu-farming-agriculture

MrsGrey

I'll summarise it for you.

EU=bad. This government = bad.

TheMadcapLaughs

I would have thought the circumstances were quite clear. They themselves voted to trigger article 50 with a fixed, firm end date of the 29th of march. The circumstances were set by the very people entrusted to enact them. If they thought that two years was insufficient time to fulfil the brief then they shouldn`t have voted to enact article 50. Surely the logical step would have been to negotiate to a point where they knew that within that two years finalising would have been a formality. I.E. an agreement supported by the majority in parliament being a prerequisite to triggering article 50. The two years could then have been used to prepare specifically for that date.

ASLEFshrugged

TheMadcapLaughs said:

This is a good article by a remainer in regards to current (I.E. EU) agricultural policy and possible future "home grown" agricultural policy:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/10/brexit-leaving-eu-farming-agriculture

The article is about what should replace the Common Agricultural Policy in order to make farming economically viable.

It doesn't mention the big problem; we import half our foodstuffs because despite 70% of land being used for agriculture we don't have enough land to feed ourselves, something we've not been able to do for at least 150 years.

TheMadcapLaughs

All government = bad?

Logical progression.

TheMadcapLaughs

Aslef, so as not to talk at crossed purposes, the point in posting the article was not in relation to self sufficiency, but just as an "unbiased" insight into current and possible future agricultural policies. As far as self sufficiency goes, whether we remain or remain (there is no alternative now) I personally would like the UK to attempt to produce more of what we eat. There is an article below that shows the possibilities:

https://www.countryfile.com/news/can-the-uk-feed-itself-after-brexit/

If we go down the Professor Lang route I would like these policies enacted after the current barbecue season. :porkpie:

Moojor

TheMadcapLaughs said:

Moojor said:

anyone see Rees mogg or whatever his name is Twitter comments. Basically in 2016 he tweets we need to leave because we have no power in the EU and now he tweets that if we have to stay for a bit we should use our power to veto everything the EU wants to do....So straight up lie back in 2016 about us being powerless in the EU....

I think, although I may be wrong, what Rees-Mogg is suggesting is that we be as disruptive as we can. An analogy would be that a school pupil can do nothing to influence the curriculum or the schools internal rules and regulations but can be thoroughly unruly and disruptive to the point of expulsion.

But when we are in the EU we actually do have the power to stop the new rules and regulations, we are part of the teaching staff if we use your analogy, not one of the students.

On a separate note, our supermarkets have much stricter rules and regulations about what fruit and veg has to look like to be sold in their shops than anything from the EU.
If you want to actually do something about food wastage then look to something which makes the supermarkets change how they sell stuff. They put in the rules about carrots being a certain length, shape, amount of bend etc.

It's why we are slowly seeing more bags of "basic" style fruit and veg, which has ones of all shapes, sizes and colours. Hugh fearnley whittingstall did a show about war on waste in which he looked at how much food farmers have to destroy because it doesn't meet the tight spec laid down by the super markets.

TheMadcapLaughs

Moojor :ok: Scuppered by my own analogy, and it`s too late to go back and modify my post. I know what I mean though. Excellent point in regards to supermarkets. They have far too much power, I have heard a couple of horror stories in regards to Tesco in particular (if the Tesco legal team are reading this I`m sure all supermarkets are equally culpable) direct from the horses mouth, local suppliers and service providers that have been subsequently stitched up. Hugh also took on the EU and supermarkets with his "fish fight", again shocking waste and markets/tastes manipulated by supermarkets. Produce local, buy local.

grey_til_I_dye

An interesting view from a committed Brexiteer:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/i-was-strong-brexiteer-now-we-must-swallow-our-pride-and-think-again/

He makes, imo, a series of extremely cogent points.

MrsGrey

A long read, but he makes his case well, I think.

BubblesNeverDies

Thanks for posting that Grey.
It would be interesting to hear from the Leavers on here what they think of it and whether it would similarly change their minds .

TheMadcapLaughs

That is an excellent article, primarily for the fact that it explains things in an easy to understand way. A couple of things I would disagree on, he makes some assumptions on our future prosperity that (imo) are simply that, assumptions, he also praises Theresa May, I`m sorry, but Theresa Mays intransigence has (imo) been one of the main obstacles to progress. I still think that if the members of parliament had tackled Brexit with the same level of enthusiasm they have for their expenses claims then we might have stood a chance. That is the problem, our parliament is a remainer institution, there is no appetite from within those walls for Brexit. Doomed to fail.

TheMadcapLaughs

One other point, and I think from memory he does touch on this, continuing on our present path, that is both within the EU and domestically, is a recipe for disaster. There are such levels of inequality, there is such a disconnect between government and citizen, that the status quo is not the safe option.

Bubbles, no. Leave means leave.

BubblesNeverDies

Madcap, see my post on page 30, 5th from top

TheMadcapLaughs

:nonono:

Cuz1

BubblesNeverDies said:

Madcap, see my post on page 30, 5th from top

It also says to pull out of and to withdraw

imagelost

I remember complaining to my mother and father,, why did you vote in favour in common Market “ which regret at that time”
I do not want to blamed for remain I justified this by I do not want to be part of Europe army navy,, what ever I had a swaz,, fin and Austrian in charge of us a some point.It does not work also friends in Plymouth said uk and Europe help mess up our fishing in our own waters,
I vote out
And still want out

BubblesNeverDies

So it seems that nothing will change some leavers' minds.

"We've got that cliff edge all arranged and by Jingo we're going to drive right off it."

Barney

Bubbles - appreciate that you may see it as a cliff edge but I have confidence in the UK and do not want our courts, laws, immigration, army etc etc controlled by the EU. I believe that others will leave in due course. The principle of a free trade area was good but European control keeps expanding and it is not for me. So rather than a cliff edge I see it as a fresh start, taking control of key issues for our country and we can still have close ties with Europe when and where we want them.

BubblesNeverDies

Barney I can't understand how, if you've read anything that's gone before or that article that Grey posted a link to, you still say "(I) do not want our courts, laws, immigration, army etc etc controlled by the EU."

Moojor

barney, what laws, court rulings etc do you believe are controlled by the EU and not us?

TheMadcapLaughs

Moojor, in theory all UK laws are controlled by the EU, in as much as the UK cannot pass laws that would conflict the EU. When it comes down to it, the EU is the final arbiter. It`s a matter of principle. I do think it is a little unfair to press people on specifics. I don`t think any one of us could name a specific EU law. On the subject of principle, this is one reason the hard left object to the EU. It would be absolutely impossible for any hard left government to commit to a full programme of nationalisation and state support/interference. Before anyone fact checks this, the EU allow a modicum of state control within public services, I`m not disputing that, but within the constraints of current EU laws, no member state would be allowed to go "full on" socialist. Within the EU all of us are, by design, neo liberals. By its very nature, the EU, is attempting to homogenize Europe.

Barney

Bubbles / Moojor. The European court takes precedent over ours - the speaker made the point quite clear in the commons a few days ago. As an example the European Court of Human Rights is superior to our courts