Nick wrote: animist wrote:
Nick wrote:Not really. It is claiming that regulation will have catastrophic effects, while ignoring the fact that such effects do not affect other international trade in that way, and making out that the only alternative is to stay in a customs union, instead of reforming or scrapping the regulations.
the article is not claiming anything,
Yes it is. It is claiming that food staples could disappear. I'd call that a warning of catastrophe.
the article reports warnings, that is all - whether these are OTT is a matter of opinion, as is what counts as staples
animist wrote: simply reporting verbatim what professionals are saying.
Pro's with an axe to grind.
you have axes on the brain!
Do you have evidence that these professionals are not impartial?
animist wrote:Look, just read what Keefe says - that the phytosanitary checks legally required on both sides of the border were a bigger challenge than the high-profile issue of customs checks that is currently dividing the cabinet; please note the word "legally".
And there we have it in a nut-shell. I am claiming that, as such checks do not need to be made at present- indeed would be banned because of the single market, you are saying that they must, must, must be imposed. Not because they are needed, but because of "the law". Then change the damn law! It is not needed!
so you demand that the whole system of phytosanitary checks be dismantled? You are entitled to your opinion, but as usual you have gone way beyond critiquing the accuracy of a particular article and onto your pet theme of degulatiion. Here is the Government advice to importers on this topic. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/plant-health-controls
I assume that these checks are made on goods from outside the EU. I have no idea how important they are, but food hygiene scares are not uncommon. The point about the Single Market (I do not understand your reference to it) is that following common regulations over time creates, I assume, an atmosphere of trust, or else that the checks will have already been made for goods imported into another EU country and reexported to Britain
I consider "staples disappearing from the shelves" to be OTT. Secondly, as above, most of the checks are unnecessary, and thirdly, I just love the delicious irony that a lefty should finally be waking up to the fact that sticking bureacracy in the way of markets is actually quite damaging!
So next itme you advocate any such thing, I'll refer you back to this!
it is not bureaucracy which is damaging markets, but Brexit. But of course there is good and bad bureacracy, not an issue with me. Regulations properly conceived and applied are vital for markets which benefit both buyer and seller rather than allowing one to exploit the other
Nick wrote:Vast numbers!! If they are not a problem, then why will it be a problem if we do not adhere to them? If we want certain regulations, then our own elected government can put them in place, not have them imposed by a foreign power.
supply examples of serious problems caused by EU regulations. What a silly non sequitur to claim that if x is not a problem then ignoring x is not a problem either. White man speak with forked tongue! Last point: it is true that EU membership involves foreigners - as does memberhip of many other international organisations, so yes, let us get foreigners out of our lives
We'll have to agree to disagree about whether or not one should have concern for ones fellow Europeans. I do; it seems you don't. I find that very sad, but let's leave that there. But continuing to rely on imported labour cannot last. There's no reason to suppose we are immune to a recession. Who knows, we might have a disastrous government, like Corbyn's for example, and millions leave for booming Southern Europe. Taking all the tax contributions with them, leaving the old and dependent. We saw that in the 1970's. It could easily happen again. And ultimately, within the lifetime of teenagers today, world population itself will be falling.
As for other people bringing in Eurosceptic parties- just look at Italy.....
And yet, you continue to praise the EU's intransigence, even in the face of economic disaster! When it's the EU's rules which are responsible for the size and duration of the disaster. But you'd rather see those rules maintained, even at the expense of the wellbeing of their people. Who's the conservative here? You or me?
last point - me. Rest of the crap: you are in your comfort zone when you rant on about southern Europe, but you never answer my question about how Brexit will help these poorer EU members. There are at least two ways in which Brexit will make things worse. First is that, as you have mentioned yourself, Britain is a net contributor to the EU budget, so there will less money around the rump EU. Secondly, Britain is a brake on the federalisation project which you presumably deplore, so its exit will allow the federalists to get on with their business
Nick wrote:Certainly there are divisions within the Conservatives. But there is a total lack of any understanding in Labour. They haven't a scooby- just look at Dan Hannan's article. But, as I see it, it is the obstinacy and bloody-mindedness of the EU which it overwhelmingly to blame. They are out to damage us. Whatever we come up with they say "Non! Impossible!" How can we progress with partners like that? It will go to the wire, it always does, and we have to be prepared to walk away. The EU has huge amounts to lose from Brexit going badly. And bit by bit, some are beginning to realise it.
last point - evidence? Labour does now support a customs union, so you are out of date. The other ideas are dumb, so why should the EU go along with them?