Open Britain - Hard Brexit

welsh thanks for that I haven't read that must have missed it. Personally I don't think that drugs can ever be tested too well.

I do know that the EU are not the only ones applying stringent rules, and I gave the USA as an example.

I think we need to be worried about more than Michael Gove.

"To find 700 species of bees in decline is shocking. That's more than half the wild bee species for which we have enough data to test.

It was only this year when the U.S. added the first-ever bee species to the endangered list. And this new data means there could be dozens or even hundreds more species that are unprotected.

We know that when bees die, food crops go with them. Bees pollinate 71 of the world’s top 100 food crops. No bees means no avocados, no apples, no strawberries...

We've already collected more than 115,000 comments from people calling on Canada to implement their bee-killing pesticide ban without delay. But the pesticide industry is among the most powerful lobbies in the country."

From www.sumofus.org about neonics. The EU has delayed a decision on banning them because the UK was against a ban.
When we leave, the UK can unilaterally allow farmers to use them. Bees will die. 90% of plants are pollinated by bees.

And it is soooo in the farmers interests to kill the bees. Banging head against brick wall time!!

The 'trial' where the women lost their sight was testing stem cells not a drug and broke every rule in the book. The women paid thousands of dollars to take part - that alone meant that the protocol- even assuming there was one, did not get ethical approval. In the world of research ethics you would never in a million years pay to take part in clinical trials and are only actually paid if you take part in Phase 1 trials - which means the first time a drug is trialled on humans - usually if not always healthy young men. In the above 'trial' the women were not even told that they were 'Guinea pigs'. It precisely illustrates that laws are needed - it doesn't prevent charlatans but does make it very unlikely that this will happen. Another built in safeguard is that if you do research, you need to have it published and all peer reviewed medial journals will need to see evidence that the research was conducted properly including the granting of ethical approval.before they will publish. Doctors can be erased from the medical register or otherwise sanctioned for research misconduct which this trial almost certainly was. In addition, there will probably be millions paid out in compensation.

rig good post

Gove is beginning to look dafter and dafter

WW you mentioned earlier that you accept freedom of movement must cease. That is surely the root of the problem - do you believe there is any real likelihood that the EU negotiators will agree to any worthwhile access to the single market without unrestricted access to the UK for all EU citizens?

We've had similar access all these years, and how many EU citizens work here; 3 million, that's all.
The scaremongering was on the part of the leavers who said we would be swamped with migrants.

I understand that DJ but that wasn't my question,

David Davies is now reported as pretty much agreeing with what I think whitewave said - i.e. the principle of unrestricted immigration must end but that in practice immigration should be allowed to continue without any specific restrictions to the extent we need it. I'm interested in whether people think that could form the basis of a deal on substantially free access to the single market.

Like the German man working in the health service said last night, nationality is in the heart, not the head.
It's not whether we want certain EU citizens to come here and help us, it's whether they want to stay. Lots are voting with their feet because they feel they are not wanted, even if they are needed. The NHS as a particular point, has lots of foreign workers who have skills they can use elsewhere. It's not an academic exercise for these people.

DJ that may be so, but my question still stands. Do people think the EU would accept that this could form the basis of a deal for substantially free access to the single market?

I think not as it could be changed at any time by the UK and borders shut. It could be that a particular number could be agreed or other rules but I think there are conditions already in place which could control the numbers which have always Ben in place but the UK Govt chose not to use them.
If further conditions were imposed we would then of course expect them to be reciprocated by the other 27 countries.

Did you see David Davis on the special Question time last night ?

Fitzy I can see the logic of what Davis was saying (sort of), but without seeing any detail, I can't see how it would work in practice, which is typical for just about anything Davis says.

The net result is that the UK is going to have just as many immigrants, which is not why people voted to leave the EU. Since the referendum, every piece of research has concluded that immigration and a vague notion of sovereignty were the main concerns. Davis' plan won't address the concerns about immigration, nor does it address sovereignty, if we end up with the same result - at vast cost.

Whether or not the EU can be persuaded to change its mind depends how the negotiations go. At the moment, it doesn't appear that the 27 would be prepared to compromise on freedom of movement, certainly without the UK giving way on something else, and I don't see why they should.

The UK already has a very good deal and exceptions, which no other country have. I can't see why the EU should give anything else away to a country behaving like a spoilt child.

I think the first issues to be resolved concern the people already living in each others' countries. They will probably take months to negotiate, before even starting on future immigration.

Welshwife I only caught the end of QT last night so didn't see Davies talk about this. I have to say though that this looks to me like something that might work. Daphne I take your point and I'm certainly still a long way from thinking a good deal will happen, but this is the first time I've come to think that it might happen.

Polly Toynbee's latest piece. The exodus seems to be starting. If the small company she contacted pay 6million tax which the UK will lose - how much will the whole bill be once we factor in the large companies.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/28/battle-line-theresa-may-car-crash-brexit-labour?CMP=share_btn_link

Well, I'm sorry Fitzy, but I really can't see how it would work, once you start looking at details. The EU's negotiating stance at the moment is that will accept nothing less than freedom of movement in exchange for access to the single market. The UK is going to have to make major concessions elsewhere.

DD clearly concessions will have to be given but the immigration barrier appeared to be the impossible hurdle. If there is a way around that there might be a way through.

I think the point is that freedom of movement will not be a million miles from what we will be prepared to accept. That is that access to anyone from the EU providing they have a job to come to. Given that figures show that only a very tiny minority are unemployed now from the EU, it will make absolutely no material difference.

What a lark eh!!!! Let's fool the voter into assuring that we will take back control of immigration.
Then decide that actually very little control is needed.

DDavis has now said there will be no cap on migration figures from the EU post Brexit -- that should please people who wanted less - also as India have said free visa access to their people in return for a trade deal we may find there is a great deal more.

What you're saying Fitzy is that the UK could possibly hang on to what it already has, but it's going to have to throw something else on the table even to achieve that.

Overall immigration is highly unlikely to decrease, until there's no 'pull' factor, ie the economy has gone completely down the pan.

Apparently 50,000 EU citizens left the UK in the last quarter(?). There are reports that these were the more skilled - doctors, nurses, teachers, etc and that unskilled immigration increased slightly. I can't blame skilled people from leaving. They have highly marketable skills and obviously don't want to stay in a country, where their future is uncertain and they feel unwelcome.

There are already restrictions on benefits in place, which stop freeloaders turning up and expecting a hand out. The UK could have gone further with restricting benefits, but the government chose not to.

The UK has never lost control of its borders, because it was never part of the Schengen Agreement. However, any kind of further restrictions are going to involve billions of pounds in enforcement - all to "take back control". I agree, ww. What a lark!

Watching last nights QT

David Davis said he has seen no explanation for the money due to the EU on our exit. Well he is either lying or stupid. The principles have already been laid out by the EU, it is up for us now to negotiate them.

To say that it may amount to nil is not only ridiculous but treating the electorate like idiots. It won't wash.

"Voters motivated by their views on immigration will feel the most betrayed now Davis’s pre-referendum promise to cut it to “almost zero” has become immigration continuing for years and years. Besides, an Indian trade deal will require more visas, though India takes just 1.7% of our exports. Liam Fox billows out imperial, free-trade fantasy, but as Labour’s Keir Starmer pointed out on Sunday, Australia takes just 1.7% of our exports, Canada 1.2% and New Zealand 0.2%. The old empire can’t replace our 44% EU exports. "

From the Polly Toynbee article.
I am afraid I cannot watch David Davis without thinking of Alan B'Stard, both MPs for Haltemprice.

Sorry, Fitzy, but you just don't get it either. EU migrants are people with feelings, not just numbers. They have been told too often that they are not wanted here.
Since the start of the year there has been a fall of almost 20% in the number of EU citizens applying for jobs here.
44% of all new jobs created since 2008 were filled by people born in another EU country.
Can you see the gap?
Concessions don't matter any more.
The government is proud of the fact that unemployment is down. It won't be long before unemployment is -, or definitely unsustainable.

DJ you seem to be almost hoping for a disaster. I'm not that optimistic myself but the latest messages seem to me more promising.