Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[ryzno]

I'm offended y'all think our chicken is sub-par!

 

[Danoff]

For you, my cousin, we make such a special deal!

Turns out an increase in supply for the same demand does not result in increasing prices. You can't get around economics.

That's the whole point. We don't have a trade deal with the EU for poultry (or pretty much anything), the government are reportedly looking at a cheaper deal with the US. That's why it's the topic of discussion.

I didn't say leaving the EU was an advantage or disadvantage. @Dotini was claiming that the UK was at a disadvantage when trading with the US.

Chlorine-washing isn't a process for chicken produced at any price-point.

It is for us, and it doesn't eliminate the demand for and supply of chicken that isn't.

And that's the other point. Those basic EU standards are three times more expensive in the USA.

You're basing this on a single grocery store price?

Hormones are banned in EU chicken. Chickens are vegetarian animals, I'm not sure giving them a vegetarian diet is a big selling point. Cage-free is just marketing, they're kept in huge beds in sheds, although in the USA there's no limit on how many can be packed in there whereas there is in the EU.

Antibiotics?

Why aren't American consumers questioning why all those basics are actually being upsold as Big Price Packet Stickers?

Some People are willing to pay for them. That's why.

Why should the UK be put in position where we have to accept

You don't.

that as the new standard when things were supposed to be getting better, not worse?

Apparently our chicken prices are not competitive, so don't sweat over it. It won't be coming if it's not competitive.

Is it feasible that we'd be able to buy US chicken that meets the UK/EU standards that we're used to at the price that we're used to paying for that standard?

I have no idea. But if it's not, my guess is it won't be imported. So no worries.


Edit:

Look, if you're wondering whether the cost of the same chicken will go up after Brexit, it might. I don't know where the UK gets its chicken from. If it's local, why worry? If it's from the EU, yea the US might not offer a better price than the EU for that product. It's a refrigerated product which makes international shipping... uh... I have no idea, probably bad. And if it's a US company that has a footprint in the UK, then maybe that counts as local.

 

[Touring Mars]

Labour have confirmed that they will not vote in favour of something next week that they refused to vote in favour of this week...

I honestly don't know what Johnson thinks he has said or done to persuade Labour to change their minds on voting in favour of a General Election prior to October 31st when he must know that they have him over a barrel already.

The state of British politics has deteriorated to such an extent that the closest thing to persuasion that the Tories have come up with thus far is to shout 'Chicken!' at Labour MPs across the floor of Parliament (yes, that literally did happen the other night...)

-

On a vaguely related note, the whole 'chlorinated chicken' thing is more about the prospect of having to adopt different food standards in order to secure new trade deals. Of course, the issue of US chlorinated chickens is just emblematic of that wider issue, but it is designed to remind people of the fact that some new trade deals will only be possible if we are prepared change our own standards, which is a point that a lot of more rabid Brexiteers tend to ignore.

 

[MatskiMonk]

but it is designed to remind people of the fact that some new trade deals will only be possible if we are prepared change our own standards, which is a point that a lot of more rabid Brexiteers tend to ignore.

Unless we plan to ignore the largest trading bloc in the world, we won't simply change our standards, we'll have to adopt US and EU standards, as well as whatever we create for ourselves.

It's small potatoes, but as a UK based supplier to Walmart, we have to meet or exceed any US legislation regarding our manufacturing that they specify, in addition to EU and UK legislation, we can't supply them if we don't and we've been audited against it. I actually support the concept, it helps increase quality of life in poorer nations, but there's no doubt it comes with increased cost and paperwork. An example for instance, is that we have to meet US Fire Safety Regulations as well as the UK/EU ones we already were. This is on top of making sure the product itself conforms to the required territorial regulations. Of which there may be more when we leave the EU if UK and EU regulations de-harmonise.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Labour have confirmed that they will not vote in favour of something next week that they refused to vote in favour of this week...

I honestly don't know what Johnson thinks he has said or done to persuade Labour to change their minds on voting in favour of a General Election prior to October 31st when he must know that they have him over a barrel already.

The state of British politics has deteriorated to such an extent that the closest thing to persuasion that the Tories have come up with thus far is to shout 'Chicken!' at Labour MPs across the floor of Parliament (yes, that literally did happen the other night...)

-

On a vaguely related note, the whole 'chlorinated chicken' thing is more about the prospect of having to adopt different food standards in order to secure new trade deals. Of course, the issue of US chlorinated chickens is just emblematic of that wider issue, but it is designed to remind people of the fact that some new trade deals will only be possible if we are prepared change our own standards, which is a point that a lot of more rabid Brexiteers tend to ignore.

All he needs to do is tell parliament that he will not present their bill for Royal Assent and then tell them Government will not be told what to do by parliament and sit back as they can't help themselves. Election guaranteed.

 

[Touring Mars]

All he needs to do is tell parliament that he will not present their bill for Royal Assent and then tell them Government will not be told what to do by parliament and sit back as they can't help themselves. Election guaranteed.

Parliament is sovereign and decides what the law is - not the Government. Indeed, I believe No. 10 has already stated that it will not block the Bill, as doing so would probably be illegal and/or put the Government in contempt of Parliament.

All Johnson can really do now is either resign or to effectively force the EU to not agree to an extension - the latter is quite possible, though that too could potentially be scuppered by further legislation to force the PM into measures that prevents them from deliberately scuppering an extension.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Parliament is sovereign and decides what the law is - not the Government. Indeed, I believe No. 10 has already stated that it will not block the Bill, as doing so would probably be illegal and/or put the Government in contempt of Parliament.

All Johnson can really do now is either resign or to effectively force the EU to not agree to an extension - the latter is quite possible, though that too could potentially be scuppered by further legislation to force the PM into measures that prevents them from deliberately scuppering an extension.

I know but would be the tactic to use to force the hand of parliament. Refusal to send for Royal Assent has been done before. Several times. You sure it's illegal?

 

[Touring Mars]

Refusal to send for Royal Assent has been done before. Several times.

I know the PM can advise the Queen to refuse Royal Assent, but I haven't heard of an example where the PM has refused to send a bill for Royal Assent... I doubt the Prime Minister has the power to do that.

 

[Dotini]

...the PM has refused to send a bill for Royal Assent... I doubt the Prime Minister has the power to do that.

No worries, mate. @TenEightyOne will quote line and verse of the written constitution.

 

[Liquid]

the PM has refused to send a bill for Royal Assent... I doubt the Prime Minister has the power to do that.

No worries, mate. @TenEightyOne will quote line and verse of the written constitution.

The last time a bill was refused Royal Assent on the advice of ministers was 1707.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I know the PM can advise the Queen to refuse Royal Assent, but I haven't heard of an example where the PM has refused to send a bill for Royal Assent... I doubt the Prime Minister has the power to do that.

Since the Crown is part of Parliament I'd assume having the PM submit it is a procedural formality not a legal necessity, but I could be totally wrong on that. It would be amusing for Brexiteers banging on about taking back are sovereignty!!!zz111! whilst championing an unelected individual directly undermining the Queens ability to enact the will of parliament (who represent the people*)


* Yes, yes, yes... I know, you don't have to say it.

 

[Liquid]

Since the Crown is part of Parliament I'd assume having the PM submit it is a procedural formality not a legal necessity

It's both a procedural formality and a legal necessity; you'd assume 99.9% of bills are passed without fuss but a bill cannot become law without Royal Assent.

 

[MatskiMonk]

It's both a procedural formality and a legal necessity; you'd assume 99.9% of bills are passed without fuss but a bill cannot become law without Royal Assent.

I get it requires royal assent, but does it need the PM to submit it.

 

[Liquid]

I get it requires royal assent, but does it need the PM to submit it.

Good question. Bills aren't actually given assent by the monarch themselves anyway; Queen Victoria was the last to do that. Assent is given by a commission of Privy Councillors entrusted with such duties by the monarch.

So... if the monarch doesn't have to actually be the person to formally give the assent then perhaps the Prime Minister doesn't have to be the actual person to submit the bill, considering that the bill is a document created and approved by a collective of the two houses?

That's just me speculating. I don't know enough about constitutional law to say anything for certain.

 

[Danoff]

On a vaguely related note, the whole 'chlorinated chicken' thing is more about the prospect of having to adopt different food standards in order to secure new trade deals. Of course, the issue of US chlorinated chickens is just emblematic of that wider issue, but it is designed to remind people of the fact that some new trade deals will only be possible if we are prepared change our own standards, which is a point that a lot of more rabid Brexiteers tend to ignore.

The chlorinated chicken thing came from a notion that somehow the UK is at a disadvantage when trading with the US. If the US and UK trade, it is to the benefit of both nations, not at the expense of one.

When it comes to Brexit, the UK could embrace the exact same standards as the EU post Brexit. The cost of some goods might go up (probably will), but if that's what the UK wants to do, the UK gets to do it. The whole point of Brexit is to not adhere to some other nation's standards.

If the UK relaxes its standards all the way down to the point that us lowly trod-upon people in the US have them, then you might get some chicken that isn't as juicy (because it was chilled in a bath), or you might get chicken that had antibiotics, or you might get GMO (whatever that is) produce. It comes at a reduced cost, and some portion of the UK population might actually prefer that option. In the US that is definitely the case. But each individual can have their own standards, and as long as there are like-minded people, those standards will be served.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No worries, mate. @TenEightyOne will quote line and verse of the written constitution.

I'm not sure of the exact purpose of that prod... but here you go. The British Constitution (i.e. the letters which constitute law in Britain) is made up of Acts verified in Letters Patent by the monarch, in this case Big Liz. Over time a number of your questions have suggested that Britain doesn't have a written constitution - it does. What we don't have is an 18th century prae se to form a basis, arguably the closest we have are the iterations of the Magna Carta, but that was allowed to be superseded in law and, for the most part, has been. In function the constitution differs little between Britain and the US in terms of legal ratification.

 

[Danoff]

In function the constitution differs little between Britain and the US in terms of legal ratification, the difference is that in the US ratification cannot supersede original wording/spirit/intent without a new Act.

I didn't quite follow this, can you elaborate?

 

[Dotini]

I'm not sure of the exact purpose of that prod... but here you go. The British Constitution (i.e. the letters which constitute law in Britain) is made up of Acts verified in Letters Patent by the monarch, in this case Big Liz. Over time a number of your questions have suggested that Britain doesn't have a written constitution - it does. What we don't have is an 18th century prae se to form a basis, arguably the closest we have are the iterations of the Magna Carta, but that was allowed to be superseded in law and, for the most part, has been. In function the constitution differs little between Britain and the US in terms of legal ratification, the difference is that in the US ratification cannot supersede original wording/spirit/intent without a new Act.

Don't you mean interpretation instead of ratification?

 

[Touring Mars]

@Danoff The trouble for the UK is that the EU will not even agree to begin talks on any future trade deal unless the UK has already signed a legally binding international treaty that commits us to a whole raft of things including alignment on standards and rules that are specifically designed to 'ensure a level playing field' (the Withdrawal Agreement).

Furthermore, if (as is increasingly likely) the UK and the EU fail to ever agree a new trade deal, the UK would be legally obliged to permanently retain all EU laws on practically everything including all future trade (without any further say in how they are made or what they are) if we have already signed the Withdrawal Agreement. That is what is making the WA a rather hard sell.

The upside to such a ridiculously one-sided arrangement is that the UK gets to stay in the Single Market - but the downsides include never being allowed to make our own trade deals or having any say in how Single Market rules are made or applied, meaning that the UK would be at a permanent disadvantage as compared to what we currently have.

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff The trouble for the UK is that the EU will not even agree to begin talks on any future trade deal unless the UK has already signed a legally binding international treaty that commits us to a whole raft of things including alignment on standards and rules that are specifically designed to 'ensure a level playing field' (the Withdrawal Agreement).

Furthermore, if (as is increasingly likely) the UK and the EU fail to ever agree a new trade deal, the UK would be legally obliged to permanently retain all EU laws on practically everything including all future trade (without any further say in how they are made or what they are) if we have already signed the Withdrawal Agreement. That is what is making the WA a rather hard sell.

This jives with my previous understanding of the situation.

The EU is playing hardball because they don't want to die as an organization, and the UK very much threatens that existence. The EU is playing for its own sake, not for the sake of the welfare of the region. They're trying to spank the UK with a bad deal or refuse to trade so that other nations won't follow suit. And it's working. You want to leave "the family"? You're going to be treated like a traitor, apparently.

I very much hope that the UK goes hard brexit with no deal, and negotiates something else 5 years from now from a place of stability. But I readily admit that that's from a perspective of not understanding every detail.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I didn't quite follow this, can you elaborate?

Fixed, I shouldn't have been watching Monza practice in another window

 

[Danoff]

I've been on a huge US civil war kick recently, so I see the relevance of it everywhere I look. I see it bigtime in the EU/UK scenario playing out right now.

Prior to the US civil war, at least one historian said that the United States was referred to with the article "are". The United States are a nation, etc. After the civil war, it became "is". Prior to the war states felt that they could be part of the Union only while they liked the deal and it was to their benefit, but that if that wasn't working out, they could leave and go it alone. The Union did not have the same concept in mind. To the federal government, the United States was one country, indivisible, and states did not have the right to leave.

Something like that is playing out with the EU right now. It's not so much a dispute over whether or not the UK has the right to leave the Union, I think everyone agrees that it does. But the Union does not want to allow itself to be divided, it wants to preserve itself as a united entity. And so it is fighting for that preservation by making it has hard as possible for the UK to leave. In this case, the Union isn't coming to occupy territory with guns (at least not now, although I believe there was talk about a Union army at some point). Instead, they're hoping to sour the population enough to make the UK voluntarily stay.

I think the outcome of Brexit just might be the loss of the UK. What is at stake really appears to be the sovereignty of the nations beneath the Union. It really does seem like the EU is on the precipice of its greatest moment, or perhaps its ultimate sunset, much like the United States was. Sure the US would have hung around if the Confederacy had managed to remain a nation, but in doing so it would have ultimately diminished, and I wonder if further disbanding would have eventually ripped it apart.

I like the UK better than most of the other European countries. I personally am rooting for UK sovereignty. It definitely seems like the EU is headed for nationhood, and the UK is crapping in that punchbowl.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I very much hope that the UK goes hard brexit with no deal, and negotiates something else 5 years from now from a place of stability.

It's difficult to imagine that the military won't have been deployed to the border within five years. Customs and passport controls will have to be in place, and they'll have to be supervised by officers of the Crown in one form or another. It's pretty obvious how that ends up.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...nd-troubles-violence-ira-border-a8297406.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/07/northern-ireland-hard-border-brexit-customs

 

[Danoff]

It's difficult to imagine that the military won't have been deployed to the border within five years. Customs and passport controls will have to be in place, and they'll have to be supervised by officers of the Crown in one form or another. It's pretty obvious how that ends up.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...nd-troubles-violence-ira-border-a8297406.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/07/northern-ireland-hard-border-brexit-customs

That doesn't have to be such a big deal. Having been through the Hong Kong/Mainland China border (complete with customs control), I've seen how smoothly it can operate when both sides want it to.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That doesn't have to be such a big deal.

Crown officers policing the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland? That's a big deal. Those officers will not be able to operate without military protection, there's no doubt about that. I don't think the Hong Kong comparison really works in the context of Ireland.

 

[Danoff]

Crown officers policing the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland? That's a big deal. Those officers will not be able to operate without military protection, there's no doubt about that. I don't think the Hong Kong comparison really works in the context of Ireland.

Feel free to explain why.

FWIW, there is a "border" at the entrance to California in the US. They don't check passports, but they do stop everyone and question you.

Edit:

And I mean coming in from the US. I suppose this could have been read as from Mexico which... yea obviously there's that one.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Eh... makes me wonder why Sinn Fein haven't felt compelled to break their stance on parliamentary abstinence.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Feel free to explain why.

Are you aware of the reasons for the Good Friday Agreement or any of the history of The Troubles? This wiki is a decent primer. Effectively if you worked for the UK police or army then you and your family were a target. If you visited British shops (on Eire or the mainland) then you were a target. You could be a target down the boozer. PSNI officers are still targeted now. The links I've posted don't give an exhaustive account of every bombing, attack, shooting or other terrorist threat, but it's a reasonable overview.

The subject of division across Eire has cost many lives, this makes the idea of a "hard border" and a real threat to public safety and security.

 

[Danoff]

Are you aware of the reasons for the Good Friday Agreement or any of the history of The Troubles? This wiki is a decent primer. Effectively if you worked for the UK police or army then you and your family were a target. If you visited British shops (on Eire or the mainland) then you were a target. You could be a target down the boozer. PSNI officers are still targeted now. The links I've posted don't give an exhaustive account of every bombing, attack, shooting or other terrorist threat, but it's a reasonable overview.

The subject of division across Eire has cost many lives, this makes the idea of a "hard border" and a real threat to public safety and security.

I'm still not seeing the issue.

A hard border can exist within your own country, China has it with Hong Kong. Varying degrees of hardness of borders are present all over the place, including the border between California and Nevada or Arizona. I'm not understanding what makes this particular issue so troubling - I get that there's history, and people have lost their lives over it. I don't see why a border causes that to happen now.

Edit:

So the theory is that Northern Ireland... Unionists? would target the border and people around the border with acts of violence because they oppose having a separation? Including a customs/passport separation for EU controls?

That seems... misguided. Why would national policy hinge on appeasing what is assumed of misguided violent people?

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm not understanding what makes this particular issue so troubling - I get that there's history, and people have lost their lives over it. I don't see why a border causes that to happen now.

Because the border is symbolic of the crown's division of Ireland into us and them, ours and yours, Ireland and Britain. That's why the principle function of the GFA was to remove the border across the island. There are many, many Irish people (some of whom have become Northern Irish as a function of the crown's ownership of Northern Ireland) who don't think the division (or the crown church) should be there. I'm not sure what the Chinese parallel is to that.