NPR

Openside wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 6:12 pm

GogLais wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 4:25 pm

frodder wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:15 pm As mean as Brexit seems to have disappeared off this thread here's what it's really about

Any good in porridge? I've seriously considered it but I haven't yet taken the plunge.

If you like Porridge and you like Marmite how can you not like them together.??

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 6:10 pm

GogLais wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 4:25 pm

frodder wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:15 pm As mean as Brexit seems to have disappeared off this thread here's what it's really about

Any good in porridge? I've seriously considered it but I haven't yet taken the plunge.

I was eating when I read this, threw up in my mouth a little. Thanks.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:18 pm My wife puts Marmite Cheese on her toast. It’s disgusting

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 12:44 pm Sorry to interrupt this fascinating discussion on cheese, but ...

there's a new deadline !

The Europeans are pissed off with all the faffing around, & want to see something by Sunday.

frodder wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 12:58 pm

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 12:44 pm Sorry to interrupt this fascinating discussion on cheese, but ...

there's a new deadline !

The Europeans are pissed off with all the faffing around, & want to see something by Sunday.

What about the non-Europeans in the process?

Police chiefs contradicted home secretary Priti Patel, warning that a no deal Brexit would make “policing more difficult” and lead to “a loss in capability”, at a meeting of the home affairs select committee today.
Their evidence came shortly after the cabinet minister had insisted that British security would be unaffected if the long running EU-UK talks were to collapse in the coming days without an agreement.
Steve Rodhouse, the director general of operations for the National Crime Agency, said “these are capabilities hugely important to us and we would not wish to lose them”. The “alternative powers and systems are suboptimal,” he added.
Rodhouse said that officers checked for criminal records on the EU system 4,000 times a week – and that it currently takes an average of 66 days to process requests from non EU countries, compared to 6 days at present.
A failure to reach a post Brexit deal would also mean the UK could no longer exchange DNA data with members of the EU, the committee heard. British police had generated “13,000 matches” since July 2019, according to Rodhouse. “These are capabilities we don’t wish to lose,” he added.

SaintK wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 5:08 pm So Patel was claiming on TV this morning that a no deal Brexit would have absolutely no effect on policing and make it any harder
The experts have now spoken.

Police chiefs contradicted home secretary Priti Patel, warning that a no deal Brexit would make “policing more difficult” and lead to “a loss in capability”, at a meeting of the home affairs select committee today.
Their evidence came shortly after the cabinet minister had insisted that British security would be unaffected if the long running EU-UK talks were to collapse in the coming days without an agreement.
Steve Rodhouse, the director general of operations for the National Crime Agency, said “these are capabilities hugely important to us and we would not wish to lose them”. The “alternative powers and systems are suboptimal,” he added.
Rodhouse said that officers checked for criminal records on the EU system 4,000 times a week – and that it currently takes an average of 66 days to process requests from non EU countries, compared to 6 days at present.
A failure to reach a post Brexit deal would also mean the UK could no longer exchange DNA data with members of the EU, the committee heard. British police had generated “13,000 matches” since July 2019, according to Rodhouse. “These are capabilities we don’t wish to lose,” he added.

I wonder who is correct?

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 7:34 pm House of Lords have written a scathing letter to George Eustice basically saying we aren’t ready for 1st Jan in the agri/food sphere. It’s a total shitshow and government have to get an extension or can expect exports to ground to a halt. This is after them getting expert evidence from the industry.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 5:28 pm

SaintK wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 5:08 pm So Patel was claiming on TV this morning that a no deal Brexit would have absolutely no effect on policing and make it any harder
The experts have now spoken.

Police chiefs contradicted home secretary Priti Patel, warning that a no deal Brexit would make “policing more difficult” and lead to “a loss in capability”, at a meeting of the home affairs select committee today.
Their evidence came shortly after the cabinet minister had insisted that British security would be unaffected if the long running EU-UK talks were to collapse in the coming days without an agreement.
Steve Rodhouse, the director general of operations for the National Crime Agency, said “these are capabilities hugely important to us and we would not wish to lose them”. The “alternative powers and systems are suboptimal,” he added.
Rodhouse said that officers checked for criminal records on the EU system 4,000 times a week – and that it currently takes an average of 66 days to process requests from non EU countries, compared to 6 days at present.
A failure to reach a post Brexit deal would also mean the UK could no longer exchange DNA data with members of the EU, the committee heard. British police had generated “13,000 matches” since July 2019, according to Rodhouse. “These are capabilities we don’t wish to lose,” he added.

I wonder who is correct?

That’s just a pitch for cash from the coppers. They’re probably both wrong,

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:38 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 7:34 pm House of Lords have written a scathing letter to George Eustice basically saying we aren’t ready for 1st Jan in the agri/food sphere. It’s a total shitshow and government have to get an extension or can expect exports to ground to a halt. This is after them getting expert evidence from the industry.

Gove says everything will be ok and it will only be a few weeks of disruption. I don't know about you but I believe everything Gove says, when has he ever not been completely truthful with us?

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 7:34 pm House of Lords have written a scathing letter to George Eustice basically saying we aren’t ready for 1st Jan in the agri/food sphere. It’s a total shitshow and government have to get an extension or can expect exports to ground to a halt. This is after them getting expert evidence from the industry.

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 9:45 am FT nails it

https://www.ft.com/content/955dc9c9-d5a ... 28c9f70e2c

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 9:50 am

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 9:45 am FT nails it

https://www.ft.com/content/955dc9c9-d5a ... 28c9f70e2c

Remainer central still shilling for Brussels.

SaintK wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 12:24 pm
Cut and paste then. It's behind a paywall.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:24 pm

SaintK wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 12:24 pm
Cut and paste then. It's behind a paywall.

And so we stumble onwards. The extension of trade talks between the EU and the UK should not be a surprise. For all Boris Johnson’s bravado about “prospering mightily”, the British prime minister knows that a “no deal” Brexit would be disastrous for the country. The EU would also suffer, but not nearly as much. So there will probably be a deal struck before the end of the year; if not, soon afterwards.

When an agreement is reached, it will largely be on Europe’s terms. The EU will doubtless makes some concessions on fisheries as part of last-minute haggling. But Britain will have to agree to the EU’s central demand, which is that there must be “level-playing field” rules — ensuring that the UK cannot undercut EU regulations on competition at will.

The reason that the deal will be done on the EU’s terms is the same reason why the whole Brexit process has been so painful for Britain — a fundamental asymmetry in power between the two sides. Britain sends 43 per cent of its exports to the EU; Germany, France and Italy all send around 6 per cent of their exports to Britain. The population of the UK is nearly 67m; that of the EU is 447m. Even without Britain, the EU has a single market comparable in size to that of the US or China.

Mr Johnson insists that the UK and the EU are “sovereign equals”. But, as long as the EU maintains its unity, they are not equals in terms of power. And that is what has mattered in these negotiations. It is why Britain has made a series of painful concessions over the past four years — most notably by agreeing to a separate status for Northern Ireland, which will see customs checks on goods crossing the Irish Sea, effectively dividing the United Kingdom.

The British have always insisted there is a win-win deal that Brussels and London should both happily embrace. But they have failed to understand how the EU sees its own interests. The integrity and attractiveness of the European single market is the EU’s single most important strategic asset. Brussels is determined not to undermine that strength, by allowing the UK market access on terms that are too advantageous.

The Europeans also need to demonstrate to Eurosceptic forces within their own countries that leaving the EU is a bad idea. So they have always been much less sold on the idea that there can be a “win-win” outcome from Brexit.

Once the Europeans had decided that it was not in their interests to grant Britain the easy access to the single market that Mr Johnson had breezily promised to UK voters, relative power became crucial. Unfortunately, Britain’s Leavers have consistently overestimated Britain’s power — believing that the EU was about to fold or make concessions that never materialised.

Why did Britain make this mistake? Partly because Leavers have placed far too much faith in the fact that the EU enjoys a large trade surplus with the UK. They have forgotten that, on a global scale, Britain is only one market among many. For years, the British have been waiting for the German carmakers to arrive over the horizon — like Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher at Waterloo — and save the day. We are still waiting. Reduced access to the British market would be painful for German carmakers — but not so painful that it is worth undermining the integrity of the EU single market.

More broadly, Britain’s Leavers were guilty of swallowing their own propaganda. For decades, the belief that the EU (and/or the euro) is on the point of collapse has been a staple of British Eurosceptic discourse. A generation brought up on tales of British military victories over Germany and France finds it hard to envisage that “if it comes to it”, Britain will not ultimately prevail over those flaky Europeans.

This kind of jingoism was epitomised by the recent remark by Gavin Williamson, Britain’s education secretary, that we’re “a much better country than every single one of them”. This is the same man, who as defence secretary, once told the Russians to “shut up and go away”.

As their illusions have been stripped away, Brexiters have resorted to complaining that the EU is treating Britain unfairly. But students of international relations and trade negotiations could have pointed out to them that relying on the kindness of other countries is not a sound strategy. Nations, Britain included, look out for their own interests first.

Horror at the weakness of Britain’s position has led to an outbreak of xenophobia and empty bluster. One British newspaper this weekend, quoting an unnamed government minister, shouted — “Merkel wants Britain to crawl across broken glass”.

The previous day, the same paper’s headline had screamed — “We’ll send in Gunboats”. The obvious response to that is — and then what? Confronting French fishermen with military force invites non-military retaliation from the whole of the EU — which brings Britain back to that awkward asymmetry in power.

In the two world wars — which have done so much to frame Brexiter thinking — the UK prevailed with the help of America. But the Biden administration will not ride to Britain’s rescue in a confrontation with the EU. A no-deal Brexit would result in not-very-splendid isolation. That is why a deal, largely on the EU’s terms, is by far the likeliest outcome.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:24 pm

SaintK wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 12:24 pm
Cut and paste then. It's behind a paywall.

And so we stumble onwards. The extension of trade talks between the EU and the UK should not be a surprise. For all Boris Johnson’s bravado about “prospering mightily”, the British prime minister knows that a “no deal” Brexit would be disastrous for the country. The EU would also suffer, but not nearly as much. So there will probably be a deal struck before the end of the year; if not, soon afterwards.

When an agreement is reached, it will largely be on Europe’s terms. The EU will doubtless makes some concessions on fisheries as part of last-minute haggling. But Britain will have to agree to the EU’s central demand, which is that there must be “level-playing field” rules — ensuring that the UK cannot undercut EU regulations on competition at will.

The reason that the deal will be done on the EU’s terms is the same reason why the whole Brexit process has been so painful for Britain — a fundamental asymmetry in power between the two sides. Britain sends 43 per cent of its exports to the EU; Germany, France and Italy all send around 6 per cent of their exports to Britain. The population of the UK is nearly 67m; that of the EU is 447m. Even without Britain, the EU has a single market comparable in size to that of the US or China.

Mr Johnson insists that the UK and the EU are “sovereign equals”. But, as long as the EU maintains its unity, they are not equals in terms of power. And that is what has mattered in these negotiations. It is why Britain has made a series of painful concessions over the past four years — most notably by agreeing to a separate status for Northern Ireland, which will see customs checks on goods crossing the Irish Sea, effectively dividing the United Kingdom.

The British have always insisted there is a win-win deal that Brussels and London should both happily embrace. But they have failed to understand how the EU sees its own interests. The integrity and attractiveness of the European single market is the EU’s single most important strategic asset. Brussels is determined not to undermine that strength, by allowing the UK market access on terms that are too advantageous.

The Europeans also need to demonstrate to Eurosceptic forces within their own countries that leaving the EU is a bad idea. So they have always been much less sold on the idea that there can be a “win-win” outcome from Brexit.

Once the Europeans had decided that it was not in their interests to grant Britain the easy access to the single market that Mr Johnson had breezily promised to UK voters, relative power became crucial. Unfortunately, Britain’s Leavers have consistently overestimated Britain’s power — believing that the EU was about to fold or make concessions that never materialised.

Why did Britain make this mistake? Partly because Leavers have placed far too much faith in the fact that the EU enjoys a large trade surplus with the UK. They have forgotten that, on a global scale, Britain is only one market among many. For years, the British have been waiting for the German carmakers to arrive over the horizon — like Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher at Waterloo — and save the day. We are still waiting. Reduced access to the British market would be painful for German carmakers — but not so painful that it is worth undermining the integrity of the EU single market.

More broadly, Britain’s Leavers were guilty of swallowing their own propaganda. For decades, the belief that the EU (and/or the euro) is on the point of collapse has been a staple of British Eurosceptic discourse. A generation brought up on tales of British military victories over Germany and France finds it hard to envisage that “if it comes to it”, Britain will not ultimately prevail over those flaky Europeans.

This kind of jingoism was epitomised by the recent remark by Gavin Williamson, Britain’s education secretary, that we’re “a much better country than every single one of them”. This is the same man, who as defence secretary, once told the Russians to “shut up and go away”.

As their illusions have been stripped away, Brexiters have resorted to complaining that the EU is treating Britain unfairly. But students of international relations and trade negotiations could have pointed out to them that relying on the kindness of other countries is not a sound strategy. Nations, Britain included, look out for their own interests first.

Horror at the weakness of Britain’s position has led to an outbreak of xenophobia and empty bluster. One British newspaper this weekend, quoting an unnamed government minister, shouted — “Merkel wants Britain to crawl across broken glass”.

The previous day, the same paper’s headline had screamed — “We’ll send in Gunboats”. The obvious response to that is — and then what? Confronting French fishermen with military force invites non-military retaliation from the whole of the EU — which brings Britain back to that awkward asymmetry in power.

In the two world wars — which have done so much to frame Brexiter thinking — the UK prevailed with the help of America. But the Biden administration will not ride to Britain’s rescue in a confrontation with the EU. A no-deal Brexit would result in not-very-splendid isolation. That is why a deal, largely on the EU’s terms, is by far the likeliest outcome.

When an agreement is reached, it will largely be on Europe’s terms. The EU will doubtless makes some concessions on fisheries as part of last-minute haggling. But Britain will have to agree to the EU’s central demand, which is that there must be “level-playing field” rules — ensuring that the UK cannot undercut EU regulations on competition at will.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:35 pm I’m also going to enjoy the FT’s journalism when the inevitable failure of Italy’s economy occurs.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:33 pm

When an agreement is reached, it will largely be on Europe’s terms. The EU will doubtless makes some concessions on fisheries as part of last-minute haggling. But Britain will have to agree to the EU’s central demand, which is that there must be “level-playing field” rules — ensuring that the UK cannot undercut EU regulations on competition at will.

I stopped here.

This currently is completely dishonest. The non regression (totally normal for every trade deal) and state aid (see UK / Japan) will be where we end up.

The Rachet has gone.

The idea that EU “regulation “ will have to be followed is nonsense .

It fails to recognise that for most standards the UK is miles in front of the Labour abusing EU minimum.

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 6:33 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:33 pm

When an agreement is reached, it will largely be on Europe’s terms. The EU will doubtless makes some concessions on fisheries as part of last-minute haggling. But Britain will have to agree to the EU’s central demand, which is that there must be “level-playing field” rules — ensuring that the UK cannot undercut EU regulations on competition at will.

I stopped here.

This currently is completely dishonest. The non regression (totally normal for every trade deal) and state aid (see UK / Japan) will be where we end up.

The Rachet has gone.

The idea that EU “regulation “ will have to be followed is nonsense .

It fails to recognise that for most standards the UK is miles in front of the Labour abusing EU minimum.

Its not dishonest ... you just don't agree or like it. If we want access to the EU markets then we will have to follow the terms the EU require, or we can refuse in which case the EU will impose tariffs and quotas. This is the sovereignty that we wanted following Brexit is it not? The article doesn't fail to recognise UK standards are higher, its not relevant, it merely points out that in the future we cannot 'undercut' the existing EU regulations if we want access to their market. If the UK Gov insist they will maintain higher than EU standards then no problem, sign the deal. However the sticking point is that this is not the direction the current Blonde Bumblecunt and his Brexit Ultras want the country to go.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:35 pm I’m also going to enjoy the FT’s journalism when the inevitable failure of Italy’s economy occurs.

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 6:33 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:33 pm

When an agreement is reached, it will largely be on Europe’s terms. The EU will doubtless makes some concessions on fisheries as part of last-minute haggling. But Britain will have to agree to the EU’s central demand, which is that there must be “level-playing field” rules — ensuring that the UK cannot undercut EU regulations on competition at will.

I stopped here.

This currently is completely dishonest. The non regression (totally normal for every trade deal) and state aid (see UK / Japan) will be where we end up.

The Rachet has gone.

The idea that EU “regulation “ will have to be followed is nonsense .

It fails to recognise that for most standards the UK is miles in front of the Labour abusing EU minimum.

Its not dishonest ... you just don't agree or like it. If we want access to the EU markets then we will have to follow the terms the EU require, or we can refuse in which case the EU will impose tariffs and quotas. This is the sovereignty that we wanted following Brexit is it not? The article doesn't fail to recognise UK standards are higher, its not relevant, it merely points out that in the future we cannot 'undercut' the existing EU regulations if we want access to their market. If the UK Gov insist they will maintain higher than EU standards then no problem, sign the deal. However the sticking point is that this is not the direction the current Blonde Bumblecunt and his Brexit Ultras want the country to go.

Rinkals wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 10:40 am

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 6:33 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:33 pm


I stopped here.

This currently is completely dishonest. The non regression (totally normal for every trade deal) and state aid (see UK / Japan) will be where we end up.

The Rachet has gone.

The idea that EU “regulation “ will have to be followed is nonsense .

It fails to recognise that for most standards the UK is miles in front of the Labour abusing EU minimum.

Its not dishonest ... you just don't agree or like it. If we want access to the EU markets then we will have to follow the terms the EU require, or we can refuse in which case the EU will impose tariffs and quotas. This is the sovereignty that we wanted following Brexit is it not? The article doesn't fail to recognise UK standards are higher, its not relevant, it merely points out that in the future we cannot 'undercut' the existing EU regulations if we want access to their market. If the UK Gov insist they will maintain higher than EU standards then no problem, sign the deal. However the sticking point is that this is not the direction the current Blonde Bumblecunt and his Brexit Ultras want the country to go.

I'm not sure that Bimbo understands the concept of dishonesty or he wouldn't post the disingenuous fake news that he perpetually peddles on here.

It seems bizarre that the UK should seek exemptions on EU regulations that members have to adhere to. Is that right? Is that the crux of the "level playing field" dilema? That the UK wants to be able to short cut regulations to gain a competitive advantage?

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:07 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:35 pm I’m also going to enjoy the FT’s journalism when the inevitable failure of Italy’s economy occurs.

Goalposts——->

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 12:28 pm

Rinkals wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 10:40 am

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 6:33 pm

Its not dishonest ... you just don't agree or like it. If we want access to the EU markets then we will have to follow the terms the EU require, or we can refuse in which case the EU will impose tariffs and quotas. This is the sovereignty that we wanted following Brexit is it not? The article doesn't fail to recognise UK standards are higher, its not relevant, it merely points out that in the future we cannot 'undercut' the existing EU regulations if we want access to their market. If the UK Gov insist they will maintain higher than EU standards then no problem, sign the deal. However the sticking point is that this is not the direction the current Blonde Bumblecunt and his Brexit Ultras want the country to go.

I'm not sure that Bimbo understands the concept of dishonesty or he wouldn't post the disingenuous fake news that he perpetually peddles on here.

It seems bizarre that the UK should seek exemptions on EU regulations that members have to adhere to. Is that right? Is that the crux of the "level playing field" dilema? That the UK wants to be able to short cut regulations to gain a competitive advantage?

that's it in essence.

The problem the UK has is that the EU demands that they have a re-balancing mechanism; their first choice was to be able to continue syncing regs over time; but the UK rejects this; & the second option is that the EU can impose tariffs unilaterally, if they think the UK regs are drifting.

Openside wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:09 pm

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 12:28 pm

Rinkals wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 10:40 am

I'm not sure that Bimbo understands the concept of dishonesty or he wouldn't post the disingenuous fake news that he perpetually peddles on here.

It seems bizarre that the UK should seek exemptions on EU regulations that members have to adhere to. Is that right? Is that the crux of the "level playing field" dilema? That the UK wants to be able to short cut regulations to gain a competitive advantage?

that's it in essence.

The problem the UK has is that the EU demands that they have a re-balancing mechanism; their first choice was to be able to continue syncing regs over time; but the UK rejects this; & the second option is that the EU can impose tariffs unilaterally, if they think the UK regs are drifting.

Is it reciprocal?

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:35 pm

Openside wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:09 pm

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 12:28 pm

that's it in essence.

The problem the UK has is that the EU demands that they have a re-balancing mechanism; their first choice was to be able to continue syncing regs over time; but the UK rejects this; & the second option is that the EU can impose tariffs unilaterally, if they think the UK regs are drifting.

Is it reciprocal?

Honestly not sure; but there seems to be a convergence towards some sort of agreed discussion & arbitration body, for when either side has a problem with the LPF. Good status article here https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2020/121 ... ade-talks/

dpedin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 9:42 am

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:35 pm

Openside wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:09 pm

Is it reciprocal?

Honestly not sure; but there seems to be a convergence towards some sort of agreed discussion & arbitration body, for when either side has a problem with the LPF. Good status article here https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2020/121 ... ade-talks/

How's the Brexit dry run going at Dover?

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 11:15 am

The complete lack of self awareness from a man who couln't outwit a napkin.

Meanwhile they're wondering how these EU nations are acting with soverignty over their borders.