If we choose to change our food safety standards to allow in US imports - how will that affect a post Brexit deal with the EU?
We would be mad to do a trade deal with the US before we have done one with the EU. So expect us to do one - or, more accurately - accept what the Americans are prepared to give us.
If we do the EU deal first though - presumably one of the criteria might be to maintain existing food standards - thus potentially ruling out a deal with the US?
What I'm getting at is I think these deals may be interdependent... which makes it doubly strange why Liam Fox isn't on the Brexit committee.
I agree though that the EU deal is much more important.
Yes - all trade deals are very interdependent and are agreed with that knowledge in mind. That's why there are also very strict rules about not being able to change your position once you have agreed a deal. A deal with the EU would very likely preclude one with the US and vice versa - mainly because we will be the junior party in both negotiations and so very beholden to what the other side tells us they are prepared to give.
I wonder how desperate our position would need to be before some of the Brexiteers start seriously floating the idea of becoming the 51st state.
51st State actually makes a lot of sense, especially now we have opted out of the EU. Of course it rather cuts against the idea of sovereignity, but that may not appear so important once the harsh realities of going it alone have sunk in.
You think we're too small and insignificant to not be subsumed into a much bigger country?
If we choose to change our food safety standards to allow in US imports - how will that affect a post Brexit deal with the EU?
We would be mad to do a trade deal with the US before we have done one with the EU. So expect us to do one - or, more accurately - accept what the Americans are prepared to give us.
If we do the EU deal first though - presumably one of the criteria might be to maintain existing food standards - thus potentially ruling out a deal with the US?
What I'm getting at is I think these deals may be interdependent... which makes it doubly strange why Liam Fox isn't on the Brexit committee.
I agree though that the EU deal is much more important.
Yes - all trade deals are very interdependent and are agreed with that knowledge in mind. That's why there are also very strict rules about not being able to change your position once you have agreed a deal. A deal with the EU would very likely preclude one with the US and vice versa - mainly because we will be the junior party in both negotiations and so very beholden to what the other side tells us they are prepared to give.
I wonder how desperate our position would need to be before some of the Brexiteers start seriously floating the idea of becoming the 51st state.
51st State actually makes a lot of sense, especially now we have opted out of the EU. Of course it rather cuts against the idea of sovereignity, but that may not appear so important once the harsh realities of going it alone have sunk in.
You think we're too small and insignificant to not be subsumed into a much bigger country?
Anyone who believes in the United Kingdom surely concurs with that statement.
Presumably anybody that is concerned about their chicken being washed in Chlorine can just rinse it with Sovereignty before consumption...
Or they could rinse it in chlorinated tap water.....oh hang on, the advice to rinse chickens was changed because it increased the risk of spreading salmonella.....which is higher in EU chickens than US ones....
The US Department of Agriculture advises against washing poultry because it is a terrible idea, that's not an EU thing.
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
Has he? I thought he had made general comments about not lowering environmental and food standards, not about this particular difference in environmental/food standards.
Yep - he has plenty of wriggle room to wave through any deal. We will get the Americans' unlabelled chlorinated chicken and they will get the NHS!
Such joy it will be to be free!!
If it was the other way round, the Guardian-reading classes would be horrified at the prospect of imports of cheap Salmonella-infested chicken from the US. The reaction is entirely driven by anti-US prejudice, and has zero to do with the reality, which is that the US rules are designed to address a quite reasonable public-health concern.
I am not particularly interested in what Guardian readers think about this specific issue (though I imagine this is something that will concern many more than them); instead, the general point is that we will take the trade deal from the Americans that we are told to take: good, bad or ugly. They will dictate the terms. That's the reality of negotiating with countries that have much bigger economies than the UK's.
If we choose to change our food safety standards to allow in US imports - how will that affect a post Brexit deal with the EU?
We would be mad to do a trade deal with the US before we have done one with the EU. So expect us to do one - or, more accurately - accept what the Americans are prepared to give us.
If we do the EU deal first though - presumably one of the criteria might be to maintain existing food standards - thus potentially ruling out a deal with the US?
What I'm getting at is I think these deals may be interdependent... which makes it doubly strange why Liam Fox isn't on the Brexit committee.
I agree though that the EU deal is much more important.
Yes - all trade deals are very interdependent and are agreed with that knowledge in mind. That's why there are also very strict rules about not being able to change your position once you have agreed a deal. A deal with the EU would very likely preclude one with the US and vice versa - mainly because we will be the junior party in both negotiations and so very beholden to what the other side tells us they are prepared to give.
I wonder how desperate our position would need to be before some of the Brexiteers start seriously floating the idea of becoming the 51st state.
51st State actually makes a lot of sense, especially now we have opted out of the EU. Of course it rather cuts against the idea of sovereignity, but that may not appear so important once the harsh realities of going it alone have sunk in.
In the extremely unlikely event of that scenario I have always assumed that we would be the 52nd to 55th States inclusive. Even California has a population of under 40m, would they really want a single state of 65m?
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
Has he? I thought he had made general comments about not lowering environmental and food standards, not about this particular difference in environmental/food standards.
What he's said, inter alia, is
"Of course it’s important we explore new trading opportunities, with the United States and other nations across the world, but it must not be, and the cabinet is agreed on this, at the risk of dropping any environmental standards whatsoever."
The problem of intensive chlorination is not that it's unhealthy in itself, but that it helps farmers mask unhealthy practices, in the same way that you can try to prevent overcrowding of poultry leading to epidemics by intensive use of antibiotics, but this has its own adverse impact (by reducing the efectiveness of antibiotics for humans as resistant strains emerge).
Leaving aside the scientific argument, wouldn't you agree that it's problematic to cut off British farmers from chicken exports to the Continent while opening the British market to a wave of new imports?
Until you've shown that you have understood what I've already written, I'm not going to introduce new concepts for you to be befuddled by.
Well, sorry if I'm being thick or have offended you, Alastair. I'm not picking on you particularly, it's simply that you have commented more than most on the motivations of Leave supporters. There is no need to be discourteous.
I am simply trying to get to the bottom of what would make someone compare Leave voters with supporters of the slave-dependent Confederacy. My understanding is that the ACW was about whether states had the right to secede from the Union, a principled cause in itself until one remembers that what they wanted to preserve by seceding was the institution of slavery. Hence the stuff about states' rights can be construed as respectable cover for wishing simply to preserve slavery.
This I presume to be what you meant when you said equated "supporting Leave ... and supporting the Confederacy as it existed in 1861: the theoretical arguments ... being overwhelmed by the reality in each case of what the fight was about."
Unless there is something I am missing, you are saying here that despite Leavers claiming they voted Leave to retain sovereignty, or for the NHS, they were in fact doing so for reasons of racism. This I abbreviated into saying you compared Leave voters with Confederate slave owners.
I don't see how this was materially inaccurate, nor even material. I was observing that Remain supporters despise Leave voters, citing your posts as evidence of contempt. Your responses to me, whom you clearly take to be a Leaver, are further evidence; probably there are other posts one could choose.
This is why I am interested to understand if you do indeed despise Leave voters, or if, despite their resemblance to 1861 Confederates, you actually hold them in high regard. It seems to me quite likely that a lot of Leavers voted Leave to piss off Remainers, whose regard they reciprocate.
Presumably anybody that is concerned about their chicken being washed in Chlorine can just rinse it with Sovereignty before consumption...
Or they could rinse it in chlorinated tap water.....oh hang on, the advice to rinse chickens was changed because it increased the risk of spreading salmonella.....which is higher in EU chickens than US ones....
The US Department of Agriculture advises against washing poultry because it is a terrible idea, that's not an EU thing.
The UK advises against washing raw chicken - the 'EU thing' is higher levels of bacteria in EU chickens than US ones...
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
Has he? I thought he had made general comments about not lowering environmental and food standards, not about this particular difference in environmental/food standards.
Yep - he has plenty of wriggle room to wave through any deal. We will get the Americans' unlabelled chlorinated chicken and they will get the NHS!
Such joy it will be to be free!!
If it was the other way round, the Guardian-reading classes would be horrified at the prospect of imports of cheap Salmonella-infested chicken from the US. The reaction is entirely driven by anti-US prejudice, and has zero to do with the reality, which is that the US rules are designed to address a quite reasonable public-health concern.
I am not particularly interested in what Guardian readers think about this specific issue (though I imagine this is something that will concern many more than them); instead, the general point is that we will take the trade deal from the Americans that we are told to take: good, bad or ugly. They will dictate the terms. That's the reality of negotiating with countries that have much bigger economies than the UK's.
So the reverse would presumably apply to the 190 countries with smaller economies, yes?
I am not particularly interested in what Guardian readers think about this specific issue (though I imagine this is something that will concern many more than them); instead, the general point is that we will take the trade deal from the Americans that we are told to take: good, bad or ugly. They will dictate the terms. That's the reality of negotiating with countries that have much bigger economies than the UK's.
You are probably right on that. However, if we get some clean US chicken and some high-quality American healthcare providers setting up here, in return for us being able to sell more services into the US, it could be a good deal overall.
Mr. Glenn, that's a comparison I find hard to fathom.
Do you consider a Slovenian to be your compatriot as much as someone from London or Leeds? Do you think there is a demos across the 27/28 nations of the EU akin to that within the UK? Do you look at a Yorkshireman or Scotsman and think "That chap's a foreigner"?
It is Thornberryesque how reluctant Remainers are to admit to this. Like Thornberry sneering at a WWC house, they post up their links proving this thing and that thing, but simply typing "I hate / despise Leavers / the WWC" despite much evidence that this is so seems to be terribly hard to do.
I wonder if it's because if anyone said that it would ex post rather justify the objects of the hatred voting as they did, making Remain's defeat explicitly the fault of Remainers?
I neither hate nor despise Leave voters, I just think that they have made the wrong choice.
Why don't you despise stupid thick racists who exhibit poor judgment?
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
Has he? I thought he had made general comments about not lowering environmental and food standards, not about this particular difference in environmental/food standards.
Yep - he has plenty of wriggle room to wave through any deal. We will get the Americans' unlabelled chlorinated chicken and they will get the NHS!
Such joy it will be to be free!!
If it was the other way round, the Guardian-reading classes would be horrified at the prospect of imports of cheap Salmonella-infested chicken from the US. The reaction is entirely driven by anti-US prejudice, and has zero to do with the reality, which is that the US rules are designed to address a quite reasonable public-health concern.
I am not particularly interested in what Guardian readers think about this specific issue (though I imagine this is something that will concern many more than them); instead, the general point is that we will take the trade deal from the Americans that we are told to take: good, bad or ugly. They will dictate the terms. That's the reality of negotiating with countries that have much bigger economies than the UK's.
So the reverse would presumably apply to the 190 countries with smaller economies, yes?
In some cases. But not in others. See here, for example:
It is Thornberryesque how reluctant Remainers are to admit to this. Like Thornberry sneering at a WWC house, they post up their links proving this thing and that thing, but simply typing "I hate / despise Leavers / the WWC" despite much evidence that this is so seems to be terribly hard to do.
I wonder if it's because if anyone said that it would ex post rather justify the objects of the hatred voting as they did, making Remain's defeat explicitly the fault of Remainers?
I neither hate nor despise Leave voters, I just think that they have made the wrong choice.
Why don't you despise stupid thick racists who exhibit poor judgment?
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
Has he? I thought he had made general comments about not lowering environmental and food standards, not about this particular difference in environmental/food standards.
Yep - he has plenty of wriggle room to wave through any deal. We will get the Americans' unlabelled chlorinated chicken and they will get the NHS!
Such joy it will be to be free!!
If it was the other way round, the Guardian-reading classes would be horrified at the prospect of imports of cheap Salmonella-infested chicken from the US. The reaction is entirely driven by anti-US prejudice, and has zero to do with the reality, which is that the US rules are designed to address a quite reasonable public-health concern.
I am not particularly interested in what Guardian readers think about this specific issue (though I imagine this is something that will concern many more than them); instead, the general point is that we will take the trade deal from the Americans that we are told to take: good, bad or ugly. They will dictate the terms. That's the reality of negotiating with countries that have much bigger economies than the UK's.
So the reverse would presumably apply to the 190 countries with smaller economies, yes?
In some cases. But not in others. See here, for example:
And the same may apply to us in dealing with larger countries/trading blocs. To take the specific example of the EU they have a very large trade surplus with us to protect which seems to give us useful cards to play. Size really isn't everything (insert obvious joke here).
This is why I am interested to understand if you do indeed despise Leave voters, or if, despite their resemblance to 1861 Confederates, you actually hold them in high regard. It seems to me quite likely that a lot of Leavers voted Leave to piss off Remainers, whose regard they reciprocate.
I don't get offended by strangers on the internet. But I'm not going to bother giving lengthy answers to posters who have no interest in anything other than taking whatever I write in furtherance of their own agenda rather than considering what I have in fact written. Candidly, I don't think you're the slightest bit interested in my views. You just want words that you can use to confirm your pre-existing worldview.
On the point about the US Civil War, however, I will indulge you. There were Confederacy supporters, General Robert E Lee supposedly being one of them, who were opposed to slavery. They no doubt sincerely believed that they were backing the right cause. But they failed to appreciate that whatever their own sincere beliefs, they were of no account given what was really going on.
Similarly, there are no doubt Leave voters who sincerely believe that they voted to retain sovereignty. But given they fell in behind a campaign that whipped up xenophobia, those beliefs are of no account - the vote that has to be honoured is the one that the public in fact voted for. One might call such Leave voters useful idiots - because that is what they are.
Mr. Glenn, that's a comparison I find hard to fathom.
Do you consider a Slovenian to be your compatriot as much as someone from London or Leeds? Do you think there is a demos across the 27/28 nations of the EU akin to that within the UK? Do you look at a Yorkshireman or Scotsman and think "That chap's a foreigner"?
In some respects Mr Dancer, there is a lack of "Demos" in the US - someone in Maine differs in many ways from someone from Texas or Idaho. It does not seem to affect the USA as a country although the North / South divide still seems to rankle.
Given more time perhaps an EU demos could emerge, but the US has had 240 years to get to where they are now and a major civil year in the interim so we are not really comparing like with like.
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
Has he? I thought he had made general comments about not lowering environmental and food standards, not about this particular difference in environmental/food standards.
What he's said, inter alia, is
"Of course it’s important we explore new trading opportunities, with the United States and other nations across the world, but it must not be, and the cabinet is agreed on this, at the risk of dropping any environmental standards whatsoever."
The problem of intensive chlorination is not that it's unhealthy in itself, but that it helps farmers mask unhealthy practices, in the same way that you can try to prevent overcrowding of poultry leading to epidemics by intensive use of antibiotics, but this has its own adverse impact (by reducing the efectiveness of antibiotics for humans as resistant strains emerge).
Leaving aside the scientific argument, wouldn't you agree that it's problematic to cut off British farmers from chicken exports to the Continent while opening the British market to a wave of new imports?
As I thought, Gove hasn't commented on this particular issue.
I understand the argument in your second paragraph, which is the EU position. However, I'm not terribly convinced by it; it sounds awfully like unscientific ideology, and in any case it doesn't seem to be the chlorine-washing which is the problem. To put it another way, when jurisdiction A has a 15% rate of contamination, and jurisdiction B has a 2% rate, it's a hell of a logical somersault to claim that B has lower standards.
On your last paragraph, why would we have to cut off exports to the EU? We could just leave those chickens unwashed and contaminated with salmonella, as the EU prefers.
We would be mad to do a trade deal with the US before we have done one with the EU. So expect us to do one - or, more accurately - accept what the Americans are prepared to give us.
If we do the EU deal first though - presumably one of the criteria might be to maintain existing food standards - thus potentially ruling out a deal with the US?
What I'm getting at is I think these deals may be interdependent... which makes it doubly strange why Liam Fox isn't on the Brexit committee.
I agree though that the EU deal is much more important.
Yes - all trade deals are very interdependent and are agreed with that knowledge in mind. That's why there are also very strict rules about not being able to change your position once you have agreed a deal. A deal with the EU would very likely preclude one with the US and vice versa - mainly because we will be the junior party in both negotiations and so very beholden to what the other side tells us they are prepared to give.
I wonder how desperate our position would need to be before some of the Brexiteers start seriously floating the idea of becoming the 51st state.
51st State actually makes a lot of sense, especially now we have opted out of the EU. Of course it rather cuts against the idea of sovereignity, but that may not appear so important once the harsh realities of going it alone have sunk in.
In the extremely unlikely event of that scenario I have always assumed that we would be the 52nd to 55th States inclusive. Even California has a population of under 40m, would they really want a single state of 65m?
It'd depend on who controls Congress, which is the body that admits new states. Given that the centre of British politics is far to the left of the centre of American politics, a British state or states are more likely to vote Democratic for Senators, Prez etc, so if the GOP is still in control expect a refusal at worse or admission as a single state at best.
(And it's for that reason that PR's bid for statehood is unlikely to go any further at present.)
Also, never mind sovereignty, what about the sovereign? The "Guarantee clause" of Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution requires the United States to guarantee a republican form of government for its member states. I don't see that going down well with Mail and Express readers, let alone Brenda herself.
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
Has he? I thought he had made general comments about not lowering environmental and food standards, not about this particular difference in environmental/food standards.
What he's said, inter alia, is
"Of course it’s important we explore new trading opportunities, with the United States and other nations across the world, but it must not be, and the cabinet is agreed on this, at the risk of dropping any environmental standards whatsoever."
The problem of intensive chlorination is not that it's unhealthy in itself, but that it helps farmers mask unhealthy practices, in the same way that you can try to prevent overcrowding of poultry leading to epidemics by intensive use of antibiotics, but this has its own adverse impact (by reducing the efectiveness of antibiotics for humans as resistant strains emerge).
Leaving aside the scientific argument, wouldn't you agree that it's problematic to cut off British farmers from chicken exports to the Continent while opening the British market to a wave of new imports?
As I thought, Gove hasn't commented on this particular issue.
I understand the argument in your second paragraph, which is the EU position. However, I'm not terribly convinced by it; it sounds awfully like unscientific ideology. It doesn't seem to be the chlorine-washing which is the problem. To put it another way, when jurisdiction A has a 15% rate of contamination, and jurisdiction B has a 2% rate, it's a hell of a logical somersault to claim that B has lower standards.
On your last paragraph, why would we have to cut off exports to the EU? We could just leave those chickens contaminated with salmonella, as the EU prefers.
Where does pumping animals full of antibiotics rate on your scale of Good Practice Mr Nabavi?
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
Has he? I thought he had made general comments about not lowering environmental and food standards, not about this particular difference in environmental/food standards.
What he's said, inter alia, is
"Of course it’s important we explore new trading opportunities, with the United States and other nations across the world, but it must not be, and the cabinet is agreed on this, at the risk of dropping any environmental standards whatsoever."
The problem of intensive chlorination is not that it's unhealthy in itself, but that it helps farmers mask unhealthy practices, in the same way that you can try to prevent overcrowding of poultry leading to epidemics by intensive use of antibiotics, but this has its own adverse impact (by reducing the efectiveness of antibiotics for humans as resistant strains emerge).
Leaving aside the scientific argument, wouldn't you agree that it's problematic to cut off British farmers from chicken exports to the Continent while opening the British market to a wave of new imports?
On your last paragraph, why would we have to cut off exports to the EU? We could just leave those chickens contaminated with salmonella, as the EU prefers.
From the NHS:
Campylobacter is the most common cause of food poisoning in the UK.
Most cases of campylobacter infection come from poultry. About 50% of the chicken sold in the UK carries the bacteria.
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
Has he? I thought he had made general comments about not lowering environmental and food standards, not about this particular difference in environmental/food standards.
What he's said, inter alia, is
"Of course it’s important we explore new trading opportunities, with the United States and other nations across the world, but it must not be, and the cabinet is agreed on this, at the risk of dropping any environmental standards whatsoever."
The problem of intensive chlorination is not that it's unhealthy in itself, but that it helps farmers mask unhealthy practices, in the same way that you can try to prevent overcrowding of poultry leading to epidemics by intensive use of antibiotics, but this has its own adverse impact (by reducing the efectiveness of antibiotics for humans as resistant strains emerge).
Leaving aside the scientific argument, wouldn't you agree that it's problematic to cut off British farmers from chicken exports to the Continent while opening the British market to a wave of new imports?
As I thought, Gove hasn't commented on this particular issue.
I understand the argument in your second paragraph, which is the EU position. However, I'm not terribly convinced by it; it sounds awfully like unscientific ideology. It doesn't seem to be the chlorine-washing which is the problem. To put it another way, when jurisdiction A has a 15% rate of contamination, and jurisdiction B has a 2% rate, it's a hell of a logical somersault to claim that B has lower standards.
On your last paragraph, why would we have to cut off exports to the EU? We could just leave those chickens contaminated with salmonella, as the EU prefers.
The EU would need to know which products contained chlorine-treated chicken. If - as is likely - there were strict rules against labelling in a US/UK trade deal this would be very difficult for UK producers to get around. It would not just be chicken carcasses affected, of course. but all products containing chicken.
In the extremely unlikely event of that scenario I have always assumed that we would be the 52nd to 55th States inclusive. Even California has a population of under 40m, would they really want a single state of 65m?
I've always assumed that the very notion is implausible as even if we wanted to join the GOP couldn't allow it.
Given that all 4 of our "States" would almost certainly vote Democrats that would mean 8 new Senators for the Democrats. Plus ~70 new Democrat inclined Presidential electors.
Its interesting that throughout its history expansions to the USA have normally been reciprocal. A new Republican state (Hawaii) for a new Democrat state (Alaska), or a new free state (Maine) and slave state (Missouri). Very rarely have there been large expansions that have leaned one way altogether.
It is Thornberryesque how reluctant Remainers are to admit to this. Like Thornberry sneering at a WWC house, they post up their links proving this thing and that thing, but simply typing "I hate / despise Leavers / the WWC" despite much evidence that this is so seems to be terribly hard to do.
I wonder if it's because if anyone said that it would ex post rather justify the objects of the hatred voting as they did, making Remain's defeat explicitly the fault of Remainers?
I neither hate nor despise Leave voters, I just think that they have made the wrong choice.
Why don't you despise stupid thick racists who exhibit poor judgment?
Because I have better things to do with my life.
But it's not an activity that occupies time. It's not a thing you do; it's an involuntary response that you deny exhibiting.
What if Leavers are equally OK with stupid thick racists who exhibit poor judgment?
On the point about the US Civil War, however, I will indulge you. There were Confederacy supporters, General Robert E Lee supposedly being one of them, who were opposed to slavery. They no doubt sincerely believed that they were backing the right cause. But they failed to appreciate that whatever their own sincere beliefs, they were of no account given what was really going on.
Similarly, there are no doubt Leave voters who sincerely believe that they voted to retain sovereignty. But given they fell in behind a campaign that whipped up xenophobia, those beliefs are of no account - the vote that has to be honoured is the one that the public in fact voted for. One might call such Leave voters useful idiots - because that is what they are.
Where the analogy fails is that there is no way that supporting Brexit, even for the worst of reasons, can be compared to supporting the Peculiar Institution.
This is why I am interested to understand if you do indeed despise Leave voters, or if, despite their resemblance to 1861 Confederates, you actually hold them in high regard. It seems to me quite likely that a lot of Leavers voted Leave to piss off Remainers, whose regard they reciprocate.
I don't get offended by strangers on the internet. But I'm not going to bother giving lengthy answers to posters who have no interest in anything other than taking whatever I write in furtherance of their own agenda rather than considering what I have in fact written. Candidly, I don't think you're the slightest bit interested in my views. You just want words that you can use to confirm your pre-existing worldview.
On the point about the US Civil War, however, I will indulge you. There were Confederacy supporters, General Robert E Lee supposedly being one of them, who were opposed to slavery. They no doubt sincerely believed that they were backing the right cause. But they failed to appreciate that whatever their own sincere beliefs, they were of no account given what was really going on.
Similarly, there are no doubt Leave voters who sincerely believe that they voted to retain sovereignty. But given they fell in behind a campaign that whipped up xenophobia, those beliefs are of no account - the vote that has to be honoured is the one that the public in fact voted for. One might call such Leave voters useful idiots - because that is what they are.
Thank you. What I want to establish is whether I can cite your posts in support of my view that Remainers despise Leavers.
Mr. Glenn, that's a comparison I find hard to fathom.
Do you consider a Slovenian to be your compatriot as much as someone from London or Leeds? Do you think there is a demos across the 27/28 nations of the EU akin to that within the UK? Do you look at a Yorkshireman or Scotsman and think "That chap's a foreigner"?
To simplify somewhat, I believe that someone from Dublin and someone from Edinburgh are equidistant from me in terms of foreignness, and that Europe as a whole does need a political identity. If the EU ceased to exist we would end up reinventing it sooner or later so why bother fighting the inevitable.
Where does pumping animals full of antibiotics rate on your scale of Good Practice Mr Nabavi?
Quite far on the bad side. However, that isn't the objection being raised, is it? If the objection is to antibiotics, why on earth are people obsessing about the washing?
This is why I am interested to understand if you do indeed despise Leave voters, or if, despite their resemblance to 1861 Confederates, you actually hold them in high regard. It seems to me quite likely that a lot of Leavers voted Leave to piss off Remainers, whose regard they reciprocate.
I don't get offended by strangers on the internet. But I'm not going to bother giving lengthy answers to posters who have no interest in anything other than taking whatever I write in furtherance of their own agenda rather than considering what I have in fact written. Candidly, I don't think you're the slightest bit interested in my views. You just want words that you can use to confirm your pre-existing worldview.
On the point about the US Civil War, however, I will indulge you. There were Confederacy supporters, General Robert E Lee supposedly being one of them, who were opposed to slavery. They no doubt sincerely believed that they were backing the right cause. But they failed to appreciate that whatever their own sincere beliefs, they were of no account given what was really going on.
Similarly, there are no doubt Leave voters who sincerely believe that they voted to retain sovereignty. But given they fell in behind a campaign that whipped up xenophobia, those beliefs are of no account - the vote that has to be honoured is the one that the public in fact voted for. One might call such Leave voters useful idiots - because that is what they are.
Thank you. What I want to establish is whether I can cite your posts in support of my view that Remainers despise Leavers.
Since you've got everything else I said wrong, it should not surprise you that you are also wrong on that.
I take a very old-fashioned Christian view that you should hate the sin, not the sinner.
51st State actually makes a lot of sense, especially now we have opted out of the EU. Of course it rather cuts against the idea of sovereignity, but that may not appear so important once the harsh realities of going it alone have sunk in.
In the extremely unlikely event of that scenario I have always assumed that we would be the 52nd to 55th States inclusive. Even California has a population of under 40m, would they really want a single state of 65m?
It'd depend on who controls Congress, which is the body that admits new states. Given that the centre of British politics is far to the left of the centre of American politics, a British state or states are more likely to vote Democratic for Senators, Prez etc, so if the GOP is still in control expect a refusal at worse or admission as a single state at best.
(And it's for that reason that PR's bid for statehood is unlikely to go any further at present.)
Also, never mind sovereignty, what about the sovereign? The "Guarantee clause" of Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution requires the United States to guarantee a republican form of government for its member states. I don't see that going down well with Mail and Express readers, let alone Brenda herself.
As I said it is a vanishingly unlikely scenario and I agree that the UK would swing Congress Democratic in a very big way. The vast majority of the Conservative Party, let alone Labour or the Lib Dems, seems much more comfortable with Democrats (Tony Blair being an obvious exception) than the modern Republican party.
Presumably anybody that is concerned about their chicken being washed in Chlorine can just rinse it with Sovereignty before consumption...
Or they could rinse it in chlorinated tap water.....oh hang on, the advice to rinse chickens was changed because it increased the risk of spreading salmonella.....which is higher in EU chickens than US ones....
The US Department of Agriculture advises against washing poultry because it is a terrible idea, that's not an EU thing.
The UK advises against washing raw chicken - the 'EU thing' is higher levels of bacteria in EU chickens than US ones...
The US advises against washing raw chicken. Everyone who knows what they're talking about advises against washing raw chicken.
That you'd even bring up "could rinse it in chlorinated tap water.....oh hang on, the advice to rinse chickens was changed because it increased the risk of spreading salmonella....." is pathetic since nobody in their right mind recommends rinsing in tap water.
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
Has he? I thought he had made general comments about not lowering environmental and food standards, not about this particular difference in environmental/food standards.
Yep - he has plenty of wriggle room to wave through any deal. We will get the Americans' unlabelled chlorinated chicken and they will get the NHS!
Such joy it will be to be free!!
If it was the other way round, the Guardian-reading classes would be horrified at the prospect of imports of cheap Salmonella-infested chicken from the US. The reaction is entirely driven by anti-US prejudice, and has zero to do with the reality, which is that the US rules are designed to address a quite reasonable public-health concern.
I am not particularly interested in what Guardian readers think about this specific issue (though I imagine this is something that will concern many more than them); instead, the general point is that we will take the trade deal from the Americans that we are told to take: good, bad or ugly. They will dictate the terms. That's the reality of negotiating with countries that have much bigger economies than the UK's.
So the reverse would presumably apply to the 190 countries with smaller economies, yes?
In some cases. But not in others. See here, for example:
And the same may apply to us in dealing with larger countries/trading blocs. To take the specific example of the EU they have a very large trade surplus with us to protect which seems to give us useful cards to play. Size really isn't everything (insert obvious joke here).
As per that LSE piece: "The UK outside the EU will be a ‘second tier’ player when it comes to negotiating free trade agreements, considerably weaker than the ‘big three’, of the US, the EU, and China"
Without a deal with the UK, the EU may lose a certain amount of its trade with us, but it is big enough to negotiate deals with others on its terms to make up for that loss. We are not big enough to do the same.
This is why I am interested to understand if you do indeed despise Leave voters, or if, despite their resemblance to 1861 Confederates, you actually hold them in high regard. It seems to me quite likely that a lot of Leavers voted Leave to piss off Remainers, whose regard they reciprocate.
I don't get offended by strangers on the internet. But I'm not going to bother giving lengthy answers to posters who have no interest in anything other than taking whatever I write in furtherance of their own agenda rather than considering what I have in fact written. Candidly, I don't think you're the slightest bit interested in my views. You just want words that you can use to confirm your pre-existing worldview.
On the point about the US Civil War, however, I will indulge you. There were Confederacy supporters, General Robert E Lee supposedly being one of them, who were opposed to slavery. They no doubt sincerely believed that they were backing the right cause. But they failed to appreciate that whatever their own sincere beliefs, they were of no account given what was really going on.
Similarly, there are no doubt Leave voters who sincerely believe that they voted to retain sovereignty. But given they fell in behind a campaign that whipped up xenophobia, those beliefs are of no account - the vote that has to be honoured is the one that the public in fact voted for. One might call such Leave voters useful idiots - because that is what they are.
Thank you. What I want to establish is whether I can cite your posts in support of my view that Remainers despise Leavers.
Since you've got everything else I said wrong, it should not surprise you that you are also wrong on that.
I take a very old-fashioned Christian view that you should hate the sin, not the sinner.
This is why I am interested to understand if you do indeed despise Leave voters, or if, despite their resemblance to 1861 Confederates, you actually hold them in high regard. It seems to me quite likely that a lot of Leavers voted Leave to piss off Remainers, whose regard they reciprocate.
I don't get offended by strangers on the internet. But I'm not going to bother giving lengthy answers to posters who have no interest in anything other than taking whatever I write in furtherance of their own agenda rather than considering what I have in fact written. Candidly, I don't think you're the slightest bit interested in my views. You just want words that you can use to confirm your pre-existing worldview.
On the point about the US Civil War, however, I will indulge you. There were Confederacy supporters, General Robert E Lee supposedly being one of them, who were opposed to slavery. They no doubt sincerely believed that they were backing the right cause. But they failed to appreciate that whatever their own sincere beliefs, they were of no account given what was really going on.
Similarly, there are no doubt Leave voters who sincerely believe that they voted to retain sovereignty. But given they fell in behind a campaign that whipped up xenophobia, those beliefs are of no account - the vote that has to be honoured is the one that the public in fact voted for. One might call such Leave voters useful idiots - because that is what they are.
Thank you. What I want to establish is whether I can cite your posts in support of my view that Remainers despise Leavers.
Since you've got everything else I said wrong, it should not surprise you that you are also wrong on that.
I take a very old-fashioned Christian view that you should hate the sin, not the sinner.
So you hate Leave votes, but not Leave voters?
How does that work in practice?
There's 2000 years worth of Christian theology for you to explore. I commend it to you.
It is Thornberryesque how reluctant Remainers are to admit to this. Like Thornberry sneering at a WWC house, they post up their links proving this thing and that thing, but simply typing "I hate / despise Leavers / the WWC" despite much evidence that this is so seems to be terribly hard to do.
I wonder if it's because if anyone said that it would ex post rather justify the objects of the hatred voting as they did, making Remain's defeat explicitly the fault of Remainers?
I neither hate nor despise Leave voters, I just think that they have made the wrong choice.
Why don't you despise stupid thick racists who exhibit poor judgment?
Because I have better things to do with my life.
But it's not an activity that occupies time. It's not a thing you do; it's an involuntary response that you deny exhibiting.
What if Leavers are equally OK with stupid thick racists who exhibit poor judgment?
How you experience it and how I experience it may well be different. You cannot draw conclusions about me based on how you think I should react.
In the extremely unlikely event of that scenario I have always assumed that we would be the 52nd to 55th States inclusive. Even California has a population of under 40m, would they really want a single state of 65m?
I've always assumed that the very notion is implausible as even if we wanted to join the GOP couldn't allow it.
Given that all 4 of our "States" would almost certainly vote Democrats that would mean 8 new Senators for the Democrats. Plus ~70 new Democrat inclined Presidential electors.
Its interesting that throughout its history expansions to the USA have normally been reciprocal. A new Republican state (Hawaii) for a new Democrat state (Alaska), or a new free state (Maine) and slave state (Missouri). Very rarely have there been large expansions that have leaned one way altogether.
Couple of those states the wrong way around but yes, the principles of the Missouri Compromise outlived the Civil War itself and seems an insuperable barrier to the UK joining the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise
This is why I am interested to understand if you do indeed despise Leave voters, or if, despite their resemblance to 1861 Confederates, you actually hold them in high regard. It seems to me quite likely that a lot of Leavers voted Leave to piss off Remainers, whose regard they reciprocate.
I don't get offended by strangers on the internet. But I'm not going to bother giving lengthy answers to posters who have no interest in anything other than taking whatever I write in furtherance of their own agenda rather than considering what I have in fact written. Candidly, I don't think you're the slightest bit interested in my views. You just want words that you can use to confirm your pre-existing worldview.
On the point about the US Civil War, however, I will indulge you. There were Confederacy supporters, General Robert E Lee supposedly being one of them, who were opposed to slavery. They no doubt sincerely believed that they were backing the right cause. But they failed to appreciate that whatever their own sincere beliefs, they were of no account given what was really going on.
Similarly, there are no doubt Leave voters who sincerely believe that they voted to retain sovereignty. But given they fell in behind a campaign that whipped up xenophobia, those beliefs are of no account - the vote that has to be honoured is the one that the public in fact voted for. One might call such Leave voters useful idiots - because that is what they are.
Thank you. What I want to establish is whether I can cite your posts in support of my view that Remainers despise Leavers.
Since you've got everything else I said wrong, it should not surprise you that you are also wrong on that.
She doesn't want to establish whether she can cite your posts in support of her view that [some] Remainers despise Leavers?
For the meat sector we run a substantial trade deficit with the rest of the EU. In 2015 £1.15 billion of meat and meat products were exported from the UK to other EU countries, but £3.86 billion of meat and meat products were imported into the UK from other EU member states. The only meat of which the UK exports more than it imports is sheepmeat.
@isam Simply telling someone 'they are wrong' isn't an actual argument. You can't keep repeating the same thing again and expect someone to concede a point. You haven't actually presented any argument, refuted any points (so rather odd of you then to assert that someone is 'plainly wrong given that you unable to do even this) you have instead presented your own opinion as total fact and bizarrely expect someone to 'concede' based on own repetitions. I'd call that a 'rick.'
If you expect your opinion to be accepted as an unchallengeable fact, then perhaps you shouldn't debate with others.
I don't really care that much about it, just noticed your rick and mentioned it. Wish I hadn't seen it now!
Perhaps because you didn't expect me to notice your rick?
I come on this site to exchange views and debate. I expect my views to get challenged.
Have a nice day.
To be fair, your original point (JRM not attracting the kind of voters the Cons need to win) was not a rick, wrong of me to say it was, it could well be true, but it invited the obvious response of pointing out that everyone said that about Corbyn until 6 weeks ago. So lets say I "reminded" you rather than "corrected". It really wasn't intended as a challenge, it was just pointing something out.
The strange thing then is you refuse to accept that people said Corbyn would be a disaster because he alienated so many people Labour needed to reach. That isn't really debatable, just read the contemporary posts/newspaper or PB articles
Re your last point, I actually didn't do that. I said specifically at the beginning of my second reply to you (in the previous thread - see here: http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1685207#Comment_1685207) that yes there were some who mentioned him only being able to appeal to hard left types but then I went on to say that there were other reasons held against JC as well and went into those reasons.
Re your first point, as well as Corbyn did, he didn't attract the voters needed to win an overall majority. That's why, although he did better than expectations he still didn't win a GE. With JRM, we are talking about whether he can win over the voters to get the Tories an overall majority. In that sense, the comparison with Corbyn isn't too favourable.
The EU would need to know which products contained chlorine-treated chicken. If - as is likely - there were strict rules against labelling in a US/UK trade deal this would be very difficult for UK producers to get around. It would not just be chicken carcasses affected, of course. but all products containing chicken.
That's a sub-detail of the detail on one very minor heading of the negotiations we'd have to have with the EU and with the US. It seems a bit early to worry about it, especially since we already import and export poultry to and from multiple EU and non-EU countries, so presumably the issue of multiple standards is one which is well understood.
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
Has he? I thought he had made general comments about not lowering environmental and food standards, not about this particular difference in environmental/food standards.
Yep - he has plenty of wriggle room to wave through any deal. We will get the Americans' unlabelled chlorinated chicken and they will get the NHS!
Such joy it will be to be free!!
If it was the other way round, the Guardian-reading classes would be horrified at the prospect of imports of cheap Salmonella-infested chicken from the US. The reaction is entirely driven by anti-US prejudice, and has zero to do with the reality, which is that the US rules are designed to address a quite reasonable public-health concern.
I am not particularly interested in what Guardian readers think about this specific issue (though I imagine this is something that will concern many more than them); instead, the general point is that we will take the trade deal from the Americans that we are told to take: good, bad or ugly. They will dictate the terms. That's the reality of negotiating with countries that have much bigger economies than the UK's.
So the reverse would presumably apply to the 190 countries with smaller economies, yes?
In some cases. But not in others. See here, for example:
And the same may apply to us in dealing with larger countries/trading blocs. To take the specific example of the EU they have a very large trade surplus with us to protect which seems to give us useful cards to play. Size really isn't everything (insert obvious joke here).
As per that LSE piece: "The UK outside the EU will be a ‘second tier’ player when it comes to negotiating free trade agreements, considerably weaker than the ‘big three’, of the US, the EU, and China"
Without a deal with the UK, the EU may lose a certain amount of its trade with us, but it is big enough to negotiate deals with others on its terms to make up for that loss. We are not big enough to do the same.
So to sum up you think size works against us but not for us. The reasons why it doesn't work for us will not apply to the few bigger than us. Maybe just a little pessimistic?
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
Has he? I thought he had made general comments about not lowering environmental and food standards, not about this particular difference in environmental/food standards.
Yep - he has plenty of wriggle room to wave through any deal. We will get the Americans' unlabelled chlorinated chicken and they will get the NHS!
Such joy it will be to be free!!
If it was the other way round, the Guardian-reading classes would be horrified at the prospect of imports of cheap Salmonella-infested chicken from the US. The reaction is entirely driven by anti-US prejudice, and has zero to do with the reality, which is that the US rules are designed to address a quite reasonable public-health concern.
I am not particularly interested in what Guardian readers think about this specific issue (though I imagine this is something that will concern many more than them); instead, the general point is that we will take the trade deal from the Americans that we are told to take: good, bad or ugly. They will dictate the terms. That's the reality of negotiating with countries that have much bigger economies than the UK's.
So the reverse would presumably apply to the 190 countries with smaller economies, yes?
In some cases. But not in others. See here, for example:
And the same may apply to us in dealing with larger countries/trading blocs. To take the specific example of the EU they have a very large trade surplus with us to protect which seems to give us useful cards to play. Size really isn't everything (insert obvious joke here).
As per that LSE piece: "The UK outside the EU will be a ‘second tier’ player when it comes to negotiating free trade agreements, considerably weaker than the ‘big three’, of the US, the EU, and China"
Without a deal with the UK, the EU may lose a certain amount of its trade with us, but it is big enough to negotiate deals with others on its terms to make up for that loss. We are not big enough to do the same.
Think I read that 1 in 7 of cars manufactured in Germany are exported to the UK.
@isam Simply telling someone 'they are wrong' isn't an actual argument. You can't keep repeating the same thing again and expect someone to concede a point. You haven't actually presented any argument, refuted any points (so rather odd of you then to assert that someone is 'plainly wrong given that you unable to do even this) you have instead presented your own opinion as total fact and bizarrely expect someone to 'concede' based on own repetitions. I'd call that a 'rick.'
If you expect your opinion to be accepted as an unchallengeable fact, then perhaps you shouldn't debate with others.
I don't really care that much about it, just noticed your rick and mentioned it. Wish I hadn't seen it now!
Perhaps because you didn't expect me to notice your rick?
I come on this site to exchange views and debate. I expect my views to get challenged.
Have a nice day.
To be fair, your original point (JRM not attracting the kind of voters the Cons need to win) was not a rick, wrong of me to say it was, it could well be true, but it invited the obvious response of pointing out that everyone said that about Corbyn until 6 weeks ago. So lets say I "reminded" you rather than "corrected". It really wasn't intended as a challenge, it was just pointing something out.
The strange thing then is you refuse to accept that people said Corbyn would be a disaster because he alienated so many people Labour needed to reach. That isn't really debatable, just read the contemporary posts/newspaper or PB articles
Re your last point, I actually didn't do that. I said specifically at the beginning of my second reply to you (in the previous thread - see here: http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1685207#Comment_1685207) that yes there were some who mentioned him only being able to appeal to hard left types but then I went on to say that there were other reasons held against JC as well and went into those reasons.
Re your first point, as well as Corbyn did, he didn't attract the voters needed to win an overall majority. That's why, although he did better than expectations he still didn't win a GE. With JRM, we are talking about whether he can win over the voters to get the Tories an overall majority. In that sense, the comparison with Corbyn isn't too favourable.
When Corbyn became leader the worry amongst Labour politicians nd grandees was not "He's got a lot of support but we worry they won't vote" but, "He will drive everyone away from us"
For the meat sector we run a substantial trade deficit with the rest of the EU. In 2015 £1.15 billion of meat and meat products were exported from the UK to other EU countries, but £3.86 billion of meat and meat products were imported into the UK from other EU member states. The only meat of which the UK exports more than it imports is sheepmeat.
Carlotta, you come across as gung-ho on Brexit. Surely, the same [ favourable ] points existed before the referendum. Yet you were pro Remain.
Democracy, does not answer that conundrum. You might well have accepted the result but it seems you have now become a zealot for the cause you voted against.
Think I read that 1 in 7 of cars manufactured in Germany are exported to the UK.
That's a lot of cars to find another market for.
Assuming they were subject to a tariff, then the majority would buy them anyway which would simply reduce their remaining disposable income and therefore reduce consumption in the UK economy, and a minority will not buy the car or go for a cheaper model.
Mr. Glenn, why does Europe need a single political identity?
Why is diversity and variety wonderful for culture but terrible for politics?
As for fighting the seemingly inevitable, it was by doing that that Leonidas lost himself and his men but saved Greece. It was by such exertions we weathered 1940 and won in 1945.
This is why I am interested to understand if you do indeed despise Leave voters, or if, despite their resemblance to 1861 Confederates, you actually hold them in high regard. It seems to me quite likely that a lot of Leavers voted Leave to piss off Remainers, whose regard they reciprocate.
I don't get offended by strangers on the internet. But I'm not going to bother giving lengthy answers to posters who have no interest in anything other than taking whatever I write in furtherance of their own agenda rather than considering what I have in fact written. Candidly, I don't think you're the slightest bit interested in my views. You just want words that you can use to confirm your pre-existing worldview.
On the point about the US Civil War, however, I will indulge you. There were Confederacy supporters, General Robert E Lee supposedly being one of them, who were opposed to slavery. They no doubt sincerely believed that they were backing the right cause. But they failed to appreciate that whatever their own sincere beliefs, they were of no account given what was really going on.
Similarly, there are no doubt Leave voters who sincerely believe that they voted to retain sovereignty. But given they fell in behind a campaign that whipped up xenophobia, those beliefs are of no account - the vote that has to be honoured is the one that the public in fact voted for. One might call such Leave voters useful idiots - because that is what they are.
Thank you. What I want to establish is whether I can cite your posts in support of my view that Remainers despise Leavers.
Since you've got everything else I said wrong, it should not surprise you that you are also wrong on that.
I take a very old-fashioned Christian view that you should hate the sin, not the sinner.
So you hate Leave votes, but not Leave voters?
How does that work in practice?
There's 2000 years worth of Christian theology for you to explore. I commend it to you.
But your claim here is at odds with your posts on the matter. You have not suggested that Leave voters should be forgiven or understood or sheltered from the consequences of Brexit. How does that attitude towards Leavers reconcile better with "2000 years worth of Christian theology" than with the much simpler and likelier interpretation that you despise them?
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
Has he? I thought he had made general comments about not lowering environmental and food standards, not about this particular difference in environmental/food standards.
Yep - he has plenty of wriggle room to wave through any deal. We will get the Americans' unlabelled chlorinated chicken and they will get the NHS!
Such joy it will be to be free!!
So the reverse would presumably apply to the 190 countries with smaller economies, yes?
In some cases. But not in others. See here, for example:
And the same may apply to us in dealing with larger countries/trading blocs. To take the specific example of the EU they have a very large trade surplus with us to protect which seems to give us useful cards to play. Size really isn't everything (insert obvious joke here).
As per that LSE piece: "The UK outside the EU will be a ‘second tier’ player when it comes to negotiating free trade agreements, considerably weaker than the ‘big three’, of the US, the EU, and China"
Without a deal with the UK, the EU may lose a certain amount of its trade with us, but it is big enough to negotiate deals with others on its terms to make up for that loss. We are not big enough to do the same.
Think I read that 1 in 7 of cars manufactured in Germany are exported to the UK.
That's a lot of cars to find another market for.
There is an assumption in there that no cars will be exported from Germany to the UK after Brexit. All Brexit does is put on a tariff [ 10% ]. That means prices could go up by 10% if the makers want it to [ they could cut their margins, for example ]. It is equivalent to the pound falling by 10%. The German car manufacturers still sold cars in 2017 after sterling fell off the cliff in June 2016. The numbers may have gone down slightly. Those who want to buy BMW will still buy a BMW.
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
Has he? I thought he had made general comments about not lowering environmental and food standards, not about this particular difference in environmental/food standards.
Yep - he has plenty of wriggle room to wave through any deal. We will get the Americans' unlabelled chlorinated chicken and they will get the NHS!
Such joy it will be to be free!!
If it was the other way round, the Guardian-reading classes would be horrified at the prospect of imports of cheap Salmonella-infested chicken from the US. The reaction is entirely driven by anti-US prejudice, and has zero to do with the reality, which is that the US rules are designed to address a quite reasonable public-health concern.
I am not particularly interested in what Guardian readers think about this specific issue (though I imagine this is something that will concern many more than them); instead, the general point is that we will take the trade deal from the Americans that we are told to take: good, bad or ugly. They will dictate the terms. That's the reality of negotiating with countries that have much bigger economies than the UK's.
So the reverse would presumably apply to the 190 countries with smaller economies, yes?
In some cases. But not in others. See here, for example:
And the same may apply to us in dealing with larger countries/trading blocs. To take the specific example of the EU they have a very large trade surplus with us to protect which seems to give us useful cards to play. Size really isn't everything (insert obvious joke here).
As per that LSE piece: "The UK outside the EU will be a ‘second tier’ player when it comes to negotiating free trade agreements, considerably weaker than the ‘big three’, of the US, the EU, and China"
Without a deal with the UK, the EU may lose a certain amount of its trade with us, but it is big enough to negotiate deals with others on its terms to make up for that loss. We are not big enough to do the same.
Think I read that 1 in 7 of cars manufactured in Germany are exported to the UK.
That's a lot of cars to find another market for.
They'd still be sold here. They'd just be more expensive to buy.
Think I read that 1 in 7 of cars manufactured in Germany are exported to the UK.
That's a lot of cars to find another market for.
Assuming they were subject to a tariff, then the majority would buy them anyway which would simply reduce their remaining disposable income and therefore reduce consumption in the UK economy, and a minority will not buy the car or go for a cheaper model.
I knew you would have some fucking ridiculous answer/excuse.
This is why I am interested to understand if you do indeed despise Leave voters, or if, despite their resemblance to 1861 Confederates, you actually hold them in high regard. It seems to me quite likely that a lot of Leavers voted Leave to piss off Remainers, whose regard they reciprocate.
I don't get offended by strangers on the internet. But I'm not going to bother giving lengthy answers to posters who have no interest in anything other than taking whatever I write in furtherance of their own agenda rather than considering what I have in fact written. Candidly, I don't think you're the slightest bit interested in my views. You just want words that you can use to confirm your pre-existing worldview.
On the point about the US Civil War, however, I will indulge you. There were Confederacy supporters, General Robert E Lee supposedly being one of them, who were opposed to slavery. They no doubt sincerely believed that they were backing the right cause. But they failed to appreciate that whatever their own sincere beliefs, they were of no account given what was really going on.
Similarly, there are no doubt Leave voters who sincerely believe that they voted to retain sovereignty. But given they fell in behind a campaign that whipped up xenophobia, those beliefs are of no account - the vote that has to be honoured is the one that the public in fact voted for. One might call such Leave voters useful idiots - because that is what they are.
Thank you. What I want to establish is whether I can cite your posts in support of my view that Remainers despise Leavers.
Since you've got everything else I said wrong, it should not surprise you that you are also wrong on that.
I take a very old-fashioned Christian view that you should hate the sin, not the sinner.
So you hate Leave votes, but not Leave voters?
How does that work in practice?
There's 2000 years worth of Christian theology for you to explore. I commend it to you.
But your claim here is at odds with your posts on the matter. You have not suggested that Leave voters should be forgiven or understood or sheltered from the consequences of Brexit. How does that attitude towards Leavers reconcile better with "2000 years worth of Christian theology" than with the much simpler and likelier interpretation that you despise them?
As I suspected, you're not the slightest bit interested in my views. You just want words that you can use to confirm your pre-existing worldview.
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
Has he? I thought he had made general comments about not lowering environmental and food standards, not about this particular difference in environmental/food standards.
Yep - he has plenty of wriggle room to wave through any deal. We will get the Americans' unlabelled chlorinated chicken and they will get the NHS!
Such joy it will be to be free!!
I am not particularly interested in what Guardian readers think about this specific issue (though I imagine this is something that will concern many more than them); instead, the general point is that we will take the trade deal from the Americans that we are told to take: good, bad or ugly. They will dictate the terms. That's the reality of negotiating with countries that have much bigger economies than the UK's.
So the reverse would presumably apply to the 190 countries with smaller economies, yes?
In some cases. But not in others. See here, for example:
And the same may apply to us in dealing with larger countries/trading blocs. To take the specific example of the EU they have a very large trade surplus with us to protect which seems to give us useful cards to play. Size really isn't everything (insert obvious joke here).
As per that LSE piece: "The UK outside the EU will be a ‘second tier’ player when it comes to negotiating free trade agreements, considerably weaker than the ‘big three’, of the US, the EU, and China"
Without a deal with the UK, the EU may lose a certain amount of its trade with us, but it is big enough to negotiate deals with others on its terms to make up for that loss. We are not big enough to do the same.
Think I read that 1 in 7 of cars manufactured in Germany are exported to the UK.
For the meat sector we run a substantial trade deficit with the rest of the EU. In 2015 £1.15 billion of meat and meat products were exported from the UK to other EU countries, but £3.86 billion of meat and meat products were imported into the UK from other EU member states. The only meat of which the UK exports more than it imports is sheepmeat.
Carlotta, you come across as gung-ho on Brexit. Surely, the same [ favourable ] points existed before the referendum. Yet you were pro Remain.
Democracy, does not answer that conundrum. You might well have accepted the result but it seems you have now become a zealot for the cause you voted against.
I'm just fed up with the fibs of some of the Remoaners - we are where we are and need to make the best of it - 'chlorine washed chicken' as opposed to 'bacteria laden chicken' is just the most recent example.....
Mr. Glenn, a real solution for a fictional problem. And that neglects the fact that power flows from nation-states to the EU, nor the other way around.
Mr. Glenn, a real solution for a fictional problem. And that neglects the fact that power flows from nation-states to the EU, nor the other way around.
Creating a stable and equitable political order for Europe is hardly a fictional problem.
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
Has he? I thought he had made general comments about not lowering environmental and food standards, not about this particular difference in environmental/food standards.
Yep - he has plenty of wriggle room to wave through any deal. We will get the Americans' unlabelled chlorinated chicken and they will get the NHS!
Such joy it will be to be free!!
If concern.
I UK's.
So the reverse would presumably apply to the 190 countries with smaller economies, yes?
In some cases. But not in others. See here, for example:
And the same may apply to us in dealing with larger countries/trading blocs. To take the specific example of the EU they have a very large trade surplus with us to protect which seems to give us useful cards to play. Size really isn't everything (insert obvious joke here).
As per that LSE piece: "The UK outside the EU will be a ‘second tier’ player when it comes to negotiating free trade agreements, considerably weaker than the ‘big three’, of the US, the EU, and China"
Without a deal with the UK, the EU may lose a certain amount of its trade with us, but it is big enough to negotiate deals with others on its terms to make up for that loss. We are not big enough to do the same.
So to sum up you think size works against us but not for us. The reasons why it doesn't work for us will not apply to the few bigger than us. Maybe just a little pessimistic?
What works against us is that when we leave the EU we will be "a second tier player". We will have almost no leverage in negotiating deals with big players - they essentially dictate the terms - while countries of a similar population size to us and/or on an upward trajectory economically will have little incentive to make any significant concessions from the current trade status quo. And those countries with which we currently have trade deals via our EU membership will see an opportunity to get better terms than they have now. It's not pessimism, it's realism. No-one owes the UK any favours. Everyone will know that we need deals because of what we have given up trade-wise by leaving the EU.
They'd still be sold here. They'd just be more expensive to buy.
Zero elasticity of demand? We just have to have those German diesel polluters!
I am sure there would be some elasticity. But the Germans, in particular, have been very good at building brand-based demand. Reassuringly expensive and all that.
This is why I am interested to understand if you do indeed despise Leave voters, or if, despite their resemblance to 1861 Confederates, you actually hold them in high regard. It seems to me quite likely that a lot of Leavers voted Leave to piss off Remainers, whose regard they reciprocate.
On the point about the US Civil War, however, I will indulge you. There were Confederacy supporters, General Robert E Lee supposedly being one of them, who were opposed to slavery. They no doubt sincerely believed that they were backing the right cause. But they failed to appreciate that whatever their own sincere beliefs, they were of no account given what was really going on.
Similarly, there are no doubt Leave voters who sincerely believe that they voted to retain sovereignty. But given they fell in behind a campaign that whipped up xenophobia, those beliefs are of no account - the vote that has to be honoured is the one that the public in fact voted for. One might call such Leave voters useful idiots - because that is what they are.
Thank you. What I want to establish is whether I can cite your posts in support of my view that Remainers despise Leavers.
Since you've got everything else I said wrong, it should not surprise you that you are also wrong on that.
I take a very old-fashioned Christian view that you should hate the sin, not the sinner.
So you hate Leave votes, but not Leave voters?
How does that work in practice?
There's 2000 years worth of Christian theology for you to explore. I commend it to you.
But your claim here is at odds with your posts on the matter. You have not suggested that Leave voters should be forgiven or understood or sheltered from the consequences of Brexit. How does that attitude towards Leavers reconcile better with "2000 years worth of Christian theology" than with the much simpler and likelier interpretation that you despise them?
As I suspected, you're not the slightest bit interested in my views. You just want words that you can use to confirm your pre-existing worldview.
Challenging them when they're incoherent doesn't connote a lack of interest. It's often the inconsistency of people's views that's interesting, in fact.
Mr. Glenn, there's increasing devolution in the UK and centralisation in the UK. Your comment is contrary to reality.
Mr. Observer, it's we'll lose negotiating weight, but also true that any negotiation we make will consider the UK position alone. As it stands, an EU trade deal (with us as a member) that helps Italy, Greece and Portugal but harms the UK would make sense for the EU, and we'd just have to put up with it.
As an independent nation we'll be negotiating solely in our interest.
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
Has he? I thought he had made general comments about not lowering environmental and food standards, not about this particular difference in environmental/food standards.
Yep - he has plenty of wriggle room to wave through any deal. We will get the Americans' unlabelled chlorinated chicken and they will get the NHS!
Such joy it will be to be free!!
If concern.
I UK's.
So the reverse would presumably apply to the 190 countries with smaller economies, yes?
In some cases. But not in others. See here, for example:
And the same may apply to us in dealing with larger countries/trading blocs. To take the specific example of the EU they have a very large trade surplus with us to protect which seems to give us useful cards to play. Size really isn't everything (insert obvious joke here).
As per that LSE piece: "The UK outside the EU will be a ‘second tier’ player when it comes to negotiating free trade agreements, considerably weaker than the ‘big three’, of the US, the EU, and China"
Without a deal with the UK, the EU may lose a certain amount of its trade with us, but it is big enough to negotiate deals with others on its terms to make up for that loss. We are not big enough to do the same.
So to sum up you think size works against us but not for us. The reasons why it doesn't work for us will not apply to the few bigger than us. Maybe just a little pessimistic?
What works against us is that when we leave the EU we will be "a second tier player". We will have almost no leverage in negotiating deals with big players - they essentially dictate the terms - while countries of a similar population size to us and/or on an upward trajectory economically will have little incentive to make any significant concessions from the current trade status quo. And those countries with which we currently have trade deals via our EU membership will see an opportunity to get better terms than they have now. It's not pessimism, it's realism. No-one owes the UK any favours. Everyone will know that we need deals because of what we have given up trade-wise by leaving the EU.
They'd still be sold here. They'd just be more expensive to buy.
Zero elasticity of demand? We just have to have those German diesel polluters!
We'll be allowed to have our own emissions tests, and demand compliance for all imported cars. We'll no longer have to accept the EU tests as adequate, when clearly in recent times they're not.
Mr. Glenn, there's increasing devolution in the UK and centralisation in the UK. Your comment is contrary to reality.
Mr. Observer, it's we'll lose negotiating weight, but also true that any negotiation we make will consider the UK position alone. As it stands, an EU trade deal (with us as a member) that helps Italy, Greece and Portugal but harms the UK would make sense for the EU, and we'd just have to put up with it.
As an independent nation we'll be negotiating solely in our interest.
If only negotiations didn't also depend on the interests and relative power or leverage of the other parties, it'd all be hunky dory...
But your claim here is at odds with your posts on the matter. You have not suggested that Leave voters should be forgiven or understood or sheltered from the consequences of Brexit. How does that attitude towards Leavers reconcile better with "2000 years worth of Christian theology" than with the much simpler and likelier interpretation that you despise them?
As I suspected, you're not the slightest bit interested in my views. You just want words that you can use to confirm your pre-existing worldview.
Challenging them when they're incoherent doesn't connote a lack of interest. It's often the inconsistency of people's views that's interesting, in fact.
Rather than offer you my own words by way of explanation, I will offer you a quotation:
"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
They'd still be sold here. They'd just be more expensive to buy.
Zero elasticity of demand? We just have to have those German diesel polluters!
We'll be allowed to have our own emissions tests, and demand compliance for all imported cars. We'll no longer have to accept the EU tests as adequate, when clearly in recent times they're not.
I get the impression from the tests I know about...... beaches, medicines...... that EU tests are more rigorous than the British wanted or expected.
Mr. Observer, it's we'll lose negotiating weight, but also true that any negotiation we make will consider the UK position alone. As it stands, an EU trade deal (with us as a member) that helps Italy, Greece and Portugal but harms the UK would make sense for the EU, and we'd just have to put up with it.
Did I imagine it or did Brexiteers consistently argue that the fact that Wallonia could hold up an EU trade deal was evidence of how unfit for purpose it was? Now you're telling us even the 2nd/3rd largest member state just has to lump whatever 'they' decide.
The truth is that post-Brexit the UK could more effectively ride roughshod over interests like Welsh farmers, which is what attracts ultra free-marketeers to the idea.
And the same may apply to us in dealing with larger countries/trading blocs. To take the specific example of the EU they have a very large trade surplus with us to protect which seems to give us useful cards to play. Size really isn't everything (insert obvious joke here).
As per that LSE piece: "The UK outside the EU will be a ‘second tier’ player when it comes to negotiating free trade agreements, considerably weaker than the ‘big three’, of the US, the EU, and China"
Without a deal with the UK, the EU may lose a certain amount of its trade with us, but it is big enough to negotiate deals with others on its terms to make up for that loss. We are not big enough to do the same.
So to sum up you think size works against us but not for us. The reasons why it doesn't work for us will not apply to the few bigger than us. Maybe just a little pessimistic?
What works against us is that when we leave the EU we will be "a second tier player". We will have almost no leverage in negotiating deals with big players - they essentially dictate the terms - while countries of a similar population size to us and/or on an upward trajectory economically will have little incentive to make any significant concessions from the current trade status quo. And those countries with which we currently have trade deals via our EU membership will see an opportunity to get better terms than they have now. It's not pessimism, it's realism. No-one owes the UK any favours. Everyone will know that we need deals because of what we have given up trade-wise by leaving the EU.
And if we continue to have tariff free access to the Single Market what then? This is the same sort of pessimism that @CarlottaVance is moaning about. Those who opposed leaving the EU persist in forecasting disaster even after the various forecasts of immediate consequences have proven to be unfounded. It is wearying.
Mr. Observer, it's we'll lose negotiating weight, but also true that any negotiation we make will consider the UK position alone. As it stands, an EU trade deal (with us as a member) that helps Italy, Greece and Portugal but harms the UK would make sense for the EU, and we'd just have to put up with it.
Did I imagine it or did Brexiteers consistently argue that the fact that Wallonia could hold up an EU trade deal was evidence of how unfit for purpose it was? Now you're telling us even the 2nd/3rd largest member state just has to lump whatever 'they' decide.
The truth is that post-Brexit the UK could more effectively ride roughshod over interests like Welsh farmers, which is what attracts ultra free-marketeers to the idea.
Yes but what about the 99.9999% who don't farm sheep and will get cheaper world lamb? Yummy.
Welsh farmers can play up the "fresh premium local" angle of course.
They'd still be sold here. They'd just be more expensive to buy.
Zero elasticity of demand? We just have to have those German diesel polluters!
I am sure there would be some elasticity. But the Germans, in particular, have been very good at building brand-based demand. Reassuringly expensive and all that.
"Germany’s biggest car manufacturers shares plunged in early trading as investors digested allegations about decades of collusion between Volkswagen, BMW and Daimler.
Investors dumped the shares after reports, which first appeared in the German press late on Friday afternoon, claiming the companies may have secretly worked together on technology, forming a cartel that could have led to the “dieselgate” emission scandal.
Between them the three car giants have had about €10bn wiped off their value since the news first broke. The companies shares have all fallen by more than 5.5pc since the claims first emerged."
I only use butter for Turkey at Christmas time never for chicken. A rack is essential to allow the fat to drain off. Otherwise some salt and pepper to give it taste is enough for me.
But your claim here is at odds with your posts on the matter. You have not suggested that Leave voters should be forgiven or understood or sheltered from the consequences of Brexit. How does that attitude towards Leavers reconcile better with "2000 years worth of Christian theology" than with the much simpler and likelier interpretation that you despise them?
As I suspected, you're not the slightest bit interested in my views. You just want words that you can use to confirm your pre-existing worldview.
Challenging them when they're incoherent doesn't connote a lack of interest. It's often the inconsistency of people's views that's interesting, in fact.
Rather than offer you my own words by way of explanation, I will offer you a quotation:
"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
"the agronomists .. sowed flax on the snow — exactly as Lysenko had ordered. The seeds expanded, grew mouldy and died. ... Lysenko of course couldn't call the snow a kulak or himself an idiot. He accused the agronomists of being kulaks and distorting his technology. And the agronomists were sent to Siberia."
Mr. Glenn, a real solution for a fictional problem. And that neglects the fact that power flows from nation-states to the EU, nor the other way around.
Creating a stable and equitable political order for Europe is hardly a fictional problem.
Europe, and indeed the world, is really still trying to work out how to deal with the fact that Germany went from being other peoples' punchbag still in about 1850 to heavyweight bruiser in 1870, in all aspects of life. It's still struggling to find a new equilibrium.
Oddly demographics might help do the trick over the next 30 odd years as I think Germany and France are due to about equal out population wise (and one assumes much else too therefore).
In fairness to the Germans to them the EU is all about addressing the issue of their size.
I only use butter for Turkey at Christmas time never for chicken. A rack is essential to allow the fat to drain off. Otherwise some salt and pepper to give it taste is enough for me.
They'd still be sold here. They'd just be more expensive to buy.
Zero elasticity of demand? We just have to have those German diesel polluters!
We'll be allowed to have our own emissions tests, and demand compliance for all imported cars. We'll no longer have to accept the EU tests as adequate, when clearly in recent times they're not.
I get the impression from the tests I know about...... beaches, medicines...... that EU tests are more rigorous than the British wanted or expected.
I used to think it was only us and the Germans who took those standards seriously. And after #dieselgate I am not so sure about them!
They'd still be sold here. They'd just be more expensive to buy.
Zero elasticity of demand? We just have to have those German diesel polluters!
I am sure there would be some elasticity. But the Germans, in particular, have been very good at building brand-based demand. Reassuringly expensive and all that.
"Germany’s biggest car manufacturers shares plunged in early trading as investors digested allegations about decades of collusion between Volkswagen, BMW and Daimler.
Investors dumped the shares after reports, which first appeared in the German press late on Friday afternoon, claiming the companies may have secretly worked together on technology, forming a cartel that could have led to the “dieselgate” emission scandal.
Between them the three car giants have had about €10bn wiped off their value since the news first broke. The companies shares have all fallen by more than 5.5pc since the claims first emerged."
As an aside, I read something a few years back (possibly 2011-12 period) suggesting that there was some form of collusion between those companies, as an economy even the size of Germany's should not be able to maintain three very healthy car companies without it - i.e. the market was not working as it should.
I only use butter for Turkey at Christmas time never for chicken. A rack is essential to allow the fat to drain off. Otherwise some salt and pepper to give it taste is enough for me.
How do you stop it drying out?
It doesn't. If anything it is too greasy. Breast down is more than enough.
Maybe I need some of that higher quality American chicken....
They'd still be sold here. They'd just be more expensive to buy.
Zero elasticity of demand? We just have to have those German diesel polluters!
I am sure there would be some elasticity. But the Germans, in particular, have been very good at building brand-based demand. Reassuringly expensive and all that.
"Germany’s biggest car manufacturers shares plunged in early trading as investors digested allegations about decades of collusion between Volkswagen, BMW and Daimler.
Investors dumped the shares after reports, which first appeared in the German press late on Friday afternoon, claiming the companies may have secretly worked together on technology, forming a cartel that could have led to the “dieselgate” emission scandal.
Between them the three car giants have had about €10bn wiped off their value since the news first broke. The companies shares have all fallen by more than 5.5pc since the claims first emerged."
As an aside, I read something a few years back (possibly 2011-12 period) suggesting that there was some form of collusion between those companies, as an economy even the size of Germany's should not be able to maintain three very healthy car companies without it - i.e. the market was not working as it should.
But they have always been very heavily dependent on their export market so the size of the German market is largely irrelevant. In Singapore in 1969 about 90% of taxis were Mercs.
Mr. Glenn, alas, I have more confidence in the defiance of Wallonia than the generally EU-phile political class here.
Consider recent actions. Throwing away half the rebate for a CAP reform promise that came to nothing. Brown promising and reneging upon a Lisbon referendum.
Cameron getting a crap deal then pretending it was great.
If British politicians had been willing to actually address concerns about the EU instead of doing their damnedest to ignore them, then I'd have some confidence they'd object to deals that weren't in our interest.
They'd still be sold here. They'd just be more expensive to buy.
Zero elasticity of demand? We just have to have those German diesel polluters!
I am sure there would be some elasticity. But the Germans, in particular, have been very good at building brand-based demand. Reassuringly expensive and all that.
"Germany’s biggest car manufacturers shares plunged in early trading as investors digested allegations about decades of collusion between Volkswagen, BMW and Daimler.
Investors dumped the shares after reports, which first appeared in the German press late on Friday afternoon, claiming the companies may have secretly worked together on technology, forming a cartel that could have led to the “dieselgate” emission scandal.
Between them the three car giants have had about €10bn wiped off their value since the news first broke. The companies shares have all fallen by more than 5.5pc since the claims first emerged."
As an aside, I read something a few years back (possibly 2011-12 period) suggesting that there was some form of collusion between those companies, as an economy even the size of Germany's should not be able to maintain three very healthy car companies without it - i.e. the market was not working as it should.
But they have always been very heavily dependent on their export market so the size of the German market is largely irrelevant. In Singapore in 1969 about 90% of taxis were Mercs.
I'd argue that whether the market being interfered with is internal or external to Germany is irrelevant. This might be the tip of a very large iceberg.
Mr. Glenn, a real solution for a fictional problem. And that neglects the fact that power flows from nation-states to the EU, nor the other way around.
Creating a stable and equitable political order for Europe is hardly a fictional problem.
Europe, and indeed the world, is really still trying to work out how to deal with the fact that Germany went from being other peoples' punchbag still in about 1850 to heavyweight bruiser in 1870, in all aspects of life. It's still struggling to find a new equilibrium.
Oddly demographics might help do the trick over the next 30 odd years as I think Germany and France are due to about equal out population wise (and one assumes much else too therefore).
In fairness to the Germans to them the EU is all about addressing the issue of their size.
I think this is out of date and reflects the thinking of someone who sees the EU as a passing fad.
The challenge of the next 30 odd years could in some ways mirror your description of Germany in the 19th century whereby a unified Europe will go from being 'other peoples' punchbag to heavyweight bruiser' on the international stage. The EU is the invisible superpower.
Mr. Glenn, a real solution for a fictional problem. And that neglects the fact that power flows from nation-states to the EU, nor the other way around.
Creating a stable and equitable political order for Europe is hardly a fictional problem.
Europe, and indeed the world, is really still trying to work out how to deal with the fact that Germany went from being other peoples' punchbag still in about 1850 to heavyweight bruiser in 1870, in all aspects of life. It's still struggling to find a new equilibrium.
Oddly demographics might help do the trick over the next 30 odd years as I think Germany and France are due to about equal out population wise (and one assumes much else too therefore).
In fairness to the Germans to them the EU is all about addressing the issue of their size.
I think this is out of date and reflects the thinking of someone who sees the EU as a passing fad.
The challenge of the next 30 odd years could in some ways mirror your description of Germany in the 19th century whereby a unified Europe will go from being 'other peoples' punchbag to heavyweight bruiser' on the international stage. The EU is the invisible superpower.
Immortal, invisible, EU only wise, In light inaccessible hid from our eyes, Most blessèd, most glorious, the Ancient of Days, Almighty, victorious, Thy great name we praise.
Unresting, unhasting, and silent as light, Nor wanting, nor wasting, Thou rulest in might; Thy justice, like mountains, high soaring above Thy clouds, which are fountains of goodness and love.
Comments
"Of course it’s important we explore new trading opportunities, with the United States and other nations across the world, but it must not be, and the cabinet is agreed on this, at the risk of dropping any environmental standards whatsoever."
The problem of intensive chlorination is not that it's unhealthy in itself, but that it helps farmers mask unhealthy practices, in the same way that you can try to prevent overcrowding of poultry leading to epidemics by intensive use of antibiotics, but this has its own adverse impact (by reducing the efectiveness of antibiotics for humans as resistant strains emerge).
Leaving aside the scientific argument, wouldn't you agree that it's problematic to cut off British farmers from chicken exports to the Continent while opening the British market to a wave of new imports?
I am simply trying to get to the bottom of what would make someone compare Leave voters with supporters of the slave-dependent Confederacy. My understanding is that the ACW was about whether states had the right to secede from the Union, a principled cause in itself until one remembers that what they wanted to preserve by seceding was the institution of slavery. Hence the stuff about states' rights can be construed as respectable cover for wishing simply to preserve slavery.
This I presume to be what you meant when you said equated "supporting Leave ... and supporting the Confederacy as it existed in 1861: the theoretical arguments ... being overwhelmed by the reality in each case of what the fight was about."
Unless there is something I am missing, you are saying here that despite Leavers claiming they voted Leave to retain sovereignty, or for the NHS, they were in fact doing so for reasons of racism. This I abbreviated into saying you compared Leave voters with Confederate slave owners.
I don't see how this was materially inaccurate, nor even material. I was observing that Remain supporters despise Leave voters, citing your posts as evidence of contempt. Your responses to me, whom you clearly take to be a Leaver, are further evidence; probably there are other posts one could choose.
This is why I am interested to understand if you do indeed despise Leave voters, or if, despite their resemblance to 1861 Confederates, you actually hold them in high regard. It seems to me quite likely that a lot of Leavers voted Leave to piss off Remainers, whose regard they reciprocate.
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/homehygiene/Pages/Washing-chicken-can-cause-campylobacter-food-poisoning.aspx
Do you consider a Slovenian to be your compatriot as much as someone from London or Leeds? Do you think there is a demos across the 27/28 nations of the EU akin to that within the UK? Do you look at a Yorkshireman or Scotsman and think "That chap's a foreigner"?
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/02/07/can-global-britain-forge-a-better-trade-deal-with-south-korea-this-is-why-its-unlikely/
On the point about the US Civil War, however, I will indulge you. There were Confederacy supporters, General Robert E Lee supposedly being one of them, who were opposed to slavery. They no doubt sincerely believed that they were backing the right cause. But they failed to appreciate that whatever their own sincere beliefs, they were of no account given what was really going on.
Similarly, there are no doubt Leave voters who sincerely believe that they voted to retain sovereignty. But given they fell in behind a campaign that whipped up xenophobia, those beliefs are of no account - the vote that has to be honoured is the one that the public in fact voted for. One might call such Leave voters useful idiots - because that is what they are.
We could call them Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia.
Given more time perhaps an EU demos could emerge, but the US has had 240 years to get to where they are now and a major civil year in the interim so we are not really comparing like with like.
I understand the argument in your second paragraph, which is the EU position. However, I'm not terribly convinced by it; it sounds awfully like unscientific ideology, and in any case it doesn't seem to be the chlorine-washing which is the problem. To put it another way, when jurisdiction A has a 15% rate of contamination, and jurisdiction B has a 2% rate, it's a hell of a logical somersault to claim that B has lower standards.
On your last paragraph, why would we have to cut off exports to the EU? We could just leave those chickens unwashed and contaminated with salmonella, as the EU prefers.
(And it's for that reason that PR's bid for statehood is unlikely to go any further at present.)
Also, never mind sovereignty, what about the sovereign? The "Guarantee clause" of Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution requires the United States to guarantee a republican form of government for its member states. I don't see that going down well with Mail and Express readers, let alone Brenda herself.
Campylobacter is the most common cause of food poisoning in the UK.
Most cases of campylobacter infection come from poultry. About 50% of the chicken sold in the UK carries the bacteria.
Given that all 4 of our "States" would almost certainly vote Democrats that would mean 8 new Senators for the Democrats. Plus ~70 new Democrat inclined Presidential electors.
Its interesting that throughout its history expansions to the USA have normally been reciprocal. A new Republican state (Hawaii) for a new Democrat state (Alaska), or a new free state (Maine) and slave state (Missouri). Very rarely have there been large expansions that have leaned one way altogether.
What if Leavers are equally OK with stupid thick racists who exhibit poor judgment?
I take a very old-fashioned Christian view that you should hate the sin, not the sinner.
That you'd even bring up "could rinse it in chlorinated tap water.....oh hang on, the advice to rinse chickens was changed because it increased the risk of spreading salmonella....." is pathetic since nobody in their right mind recommends rinsing in tap water.
Without a deal with the UK, the EU may lose a certain amount of its trade with us, but it is big enough to negotiate deals with others on its terms to make up for that loss. We are not big enough to do the same.
How does that work in practice?
https://www.imta-uk.org/images/stories/pdf_docs/imports_paper/Overview of Current UK Meat Import and Export Trade.pdf
UK & EU Imports/Exports
Poultry: 921 / 185
Re your first point, as well as Corbyn did, he didn't attract the voters needed to win an overall majority. That's why, although he did better than expectations he still didn't win a GE. With JRM, we are talking about whether he can win over the voters to get the Tories an overall majority. In that sense, the comparison with Corbyn isn't too favourable.
Seriously!
That's a lot of cars to find another market for.
Democracy, does not answer that conundrum. You might well have accepted the result but it seems you have now become a zealot for the cause you voted against.
Why is diversity and variety wonderful for culture but terrible for politics?
As for fighting the seemingly inevitable, it was by doing that that Leonidas lost himself and his men but saved Greece. It was by such exertions we weathered 1940 and won in 1945.
I would hate to have your view on life.
https://global.handelsblatt.com/companies-markets/car-industry-would-bounce-back-experts-say-548880
Deloitte reckon 60,000 German car industry jobs depend on exports to Britain
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-22/post-brexit-u-k-car-sales-slump-seen-risking-18-000-german-jobs
Multi-lateral co-operation works very well. A one-size-fits-all political straitjacket does not.
Mr. Observer, it's we'll lose negotiating weight, but also true that any negotiation we make will consider the UK position alone. As it stands, an EU trade deal (with us as a member) that helps Italy, Greece and Portugal but harms the UK would make sense for the EU, and we'd just have to put up with it.
As an independent nation we'll be negotiating solely in our interest.
http://www.lakeland.co.uk/15386/OXO-Good-Grips-Large-Fat-Separator-Cup
and throw it away before making gravy with the rest.
"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
The truth is that post-Brexit the UK could more effectively ride roughshod over interests like Welsh farmers, which is what attracts ultra free-marketeers to the idea.
Welsh farmers can play up the "fresh premium local" angle of course.
Investors dumped the shares after reports, which first appeared in the German press late on Friday afternoon, claiming the companies may have secretly worked together on technology, forming a cartel that could have led to the “dieselgate” emission scandal.
Between them the three car giants have had about €10bn wiped off their value since the news first broke. The companies shares have all fallen by more than 5.5pc since the claims first emerged."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/24/german-car-makers-shares-crash-allegations-collusion/?WT.mc_id=e_DM503025&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_FPM_New_AEM_Recipient&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_FPM_New_AEM_Recipient_2017_07_24&utm_campaign=DM503025
Oddly demographics might help do the trick over the next 30 odd years as I think Germany and France are due to about equal out population wise (and one assumes much else too therefore).
In fairness to the Germans to them the EU is all about addressing the issue of their size.
Maybe I need some of that higher quality American chicken....
Consider recent actions. Throwing away half the rebate for a CAP reform promise that came to nothing. Brown promising and reneging upon a Lisbon referendum.
Cameron getting a crap deal then pretending it was great.
If British politicians had been willing to actually address concerns about the EU instead of doing their damnedest to ignore them, then I'd have some confidence they'd object to deals that weren't in our interest.
The challenge of the next 30 odd years could in some ways mirror your description of Germany in the 19th century whereby a unified Europe will go from being 'other peoples' punchbag to heavyweight bruiser' on the international stage. The EU is the invisible superpower.
In light inaccessible hid from our eyes,
Most blessèd, most glorious, the Ancient of Days,
Almighty, victorious, Thy great name we praise.
Unresting, unhasting, and silent as light,
Nor wanting, nor wasting, Thou rulest in might;
Thy justice, like mountains, high soaring above
Thy clouds, which are fountains of goodness and love.
(apologies to Walter C. Smith)