Guy Verhofstadt says “Happy Brexit Day”

Well, the legislation to prevent the right to strike has just been passed in parliament I believe

No, I don’t think that’s quite right MayBee.
Isn’t it something about maintaining a certain level of service by strike action? I’m sure I read something like that. Maybe I’m wrong so I must look it up later.

varian

Just listen to former Tory donor Guy Hands telling the truth about brexit

www.theguardian.com/media/video/2023/jan/31/complete-disaster-and-total-lies-tory-billionaire-lambasts-effects-of-brexit-audio

Interesting comment on Liz Truss.

Did you read about the email - the shortest email in history - sent to Liz Truss by the IMF?

TO: Liz Truss
FROM: IMF

SUBJECT: WTF?

😂

Just listen to former Tory donor Guy Hands telling the truth about brexit

www.theguardian.com/media/video/2023/jan/31/complete-disaster-and-total-lies-tory-billionaire-lambasts-effects-of-brexit-audio

Urmstongran

^The UK is now flaming all the EU regulations on workers' rights, pesticides, additives, water treatment, husbandry, drugs, and so many other things, with so many more to come.^

I think you do the UK government a disservice Fleurpepper as some regulations (maternity leave for one if I recall correctly) were already superior to those within the EU. I think we will keep good rules that suit our country. To suggest otherwise is to cast the government with malign intentions towards its electorate and I for one just do not follow that reasoning.

Well, the legislation to prevent the right to strike has just been passed in parliament I believe. And Sunak appears to be refusing to have a dialogue with striking health workers. Make of that what you will but, imo it’s the thin end if the wedge. Goodbye workers rights…

Fleurpepper

I am talking about things that would/does affect exports.
Take the example of meat- that will now be produced with very different standards to EU. Workers conditions and rights, but mainly feeds, husbandry and antibiotic and other vet medicines, etc.

Why should they take the risk of such produce getting into the EU market, when produced very differently, representing unfair, and possibly dangerous, competition?

Haven't you understood yet, Fleurpepper that some Leave voters don't give a flying f* about things like placing barriers on trade, or understanding the significance of international agreements. Or the economic decline of their nation and the loss of its international prestige. Or taking away people's valued rights, or voting into power the most worthless human being in the UK and the most corrupt and fascist government we have ever had. Then they expect us to respect their worthless opinions which have nothing to validate them except 'feelings'.

Sorry, I can't be doing with it.

I am talking about things that would/does affect exports.
Take the example of meat- that will now be produced with very different standards to EU. Workers conditions and rights, but mainly feeds, husbandry and antibiotic and other vet medicines, etc.

Why should they take the risk of such produce getting into the EU market, when produced very differently, representing unfair, and possibly dangerous, competition?

The UK is now flaming all the EU regulations on workers' rights, pesticides, additives, water treatment, husbandry, drugs, and so many other things, with so many more to come.

I think you do the UK government a disservice Fleurpepper as some regulations (maternity leave for one if I recall correctly) were already superior to those within the EU. I think we will keep good rules that suit our country. To suggest otherwise is to cast the government with malign intentions towards its electorate and I for one just do not follow that reasoning.

Ah IrishDancing I cannot answer Siope’s questions.
I am not clever enough to understand such details but, in my opinion, such pressing questions would have been thrashed out more equitably by both sides (WTO I believe would have been disastrous for both sides) with a degree of competency and urgency. It certainly would have focused minds at the time instead of the drip drip of non urgent talks that we have endured ever since the vote.

Urmstongran please could you answer Siope’s politely put questions. Thankyou.

I think he ignored the threat of a pandemic because he was too busy concentrating on brexit (and, of course, his divorce). Which resulted in people dying. And he was seriously ill with covid because he chose to ignore the severity of it. Taking one for the team as his father said. He would have passed it on to the Queen had he not been prevented from seeing her.

You speak a lot of sense Dickens and I get where you’re coming from. But Boris WAS the only politician promising to honour the referendum result. The LibDems under Jo Swindon (? Sp) just wanted to reverse that democratic resukt carte blanche which obviously suited those who didn’t like the result. But what price democracy? ‘We don’t like the resukt so we will just ignore it’?? Starmer wanted a second referendum (he doesn’t now). Indicative Votes in the HoC was drama and idiotic behaviour on steroids. What chance or alternative did the British voting public have to get Brexit over the line. We desperately needed a champion. Boris likely sussed that as his best way to get elected. But the swell of Red Wall voters who lent the Conservatives their vote - many for the very first time - amazed the journalists with that huge 80 seat majority. It spoke volumes.

Then he wasted it.
I think when he got Covid a few months later it just knocked the stuffing out of him and anyway, it was all “Protect our NHS” and “Stay 2 metres apart” with no vaccines yet on the horizon, people were scared.
And the impetus for Brexit just trickled away.
Timing eh?
.

Oreo

Yours could be very unfortunate😁

😂

Yes, I did of course mean WTO you are correct Siope.
I think WTO would have been a good first move. A seismic shock perhaps (we’ve had worse recently with the deaths and financial destruction wrought by Covid) and then, talking heads would have got around the negotiating table and thrashed out (through necessity) something more fair to both sides - instead of what we got - the EU wanting to punish the UK for their temerity of voting for Brexit. I understand why they felt the need to do that, to dissuade other EU countries from even contemplating it. Fire it is still talked about in some political circles in France.

I don’t think anyone’s forum name should be shortened, you only need type it once, and if you use the quote facility not at all.
So you’ll stay Urmstongran to me😃

👋🏼

That made me laugh Oreo!

I haven’t read all of the comments since my last post but thank you GG13 for asking that question. Ages ago, I did ask volver not to address me as UG as it seemed to portray me (by a play on words) as some sort of Neanderthal. She graciously accepted my request and has, ever since, addressed me as Urms.

I suppose I ought not to be so sensitive. I suppose also this is in part because my views are diametrically opposed to the vast majority of view on Brexit on GN. However it still hurts a little when some responses to my views attack the player and not the ball. By calling me dim etc.

I do respect other people’s views and I never call people stupid or dim witted. I would just very much appreciate the same level of courtesy.

Debate is good. We have different opinions and that’s fine and understandable.

Yours could be very unfortunate😁

GrannyGravy13

Why do posters call Urmstongran Ug ?

... as MaizieD indicated. And sometimes abbreviated to "Urms" - which I do, but it's meant 'affectionately'.

I don't think anyone abbreviates anyone else's name maliciously.

Well I hope they don't, anyway.

Abbreviation. U for Urmston g for gran.

I've always abbreviated it like that, with no malign intent originally, and have no intention of changing now.

Johnson got the gig on his promise to "get Brexit done".

He didn't ask Leavers - "how do you want it 'done", didn't stop to consider the best way of achieving our exit. He allowed no time to consider or reflect on an event that would shape our future life, constitutionally, economically, culturally. The clamour to get 'out' from his majority spurred him to literally get it over and done with for fear of losing his power and popularity, and what we got is a rushed and botched ;agreement. He could - like any sensible person responsible for a major change - have taken his time, looked at all the angles and possible consequences, and allowed scrutiny of the final document. But he knew that if he did that, he would incur the wrath of those who lent him their vote and lose their support, and his very position as head honcho would be in jeopardy. So he rushed it through, and here we are.

There are numerous reports of people saying, "this is not the Brexit we voted for", and similar comments from those that are disappointed with the way things have turned out. Considering all the hype from the pro-Brexit high-fliers, it's hardly surprising because they all 'promised' and promoted ideas that are the complete opposite of the end result. IMO, Johnson was the very worst person to choose to oversee Brexit. And I'm not even sure he believed or still believes himself half of the stuff he came out with or promoted. But it didn't and doesn't matter to him because his objective was to become PM and maintain that power. He's now grand-standing around the world because he can't let go of his ambition and cannot accept that he's had it, that he's no longer top dog. He and Trump have that much in common - a super, massive ego, that has to be constantly fed - even if it means flying in the face of facts, even if it means going against the increasing wishes of people that he bows out. And both he and Trump are now loose cannons. Both lie, and both believe their own lies Anyone who speaks against either are considered to be wrong - simply by the mere fact of opposing them. I think both men have damaged their respective countries and don't actually give a damn. Of the two, Johnson is the most intelligent, and that makes him even more dangerous.

Brexit was not about 'Brexit' - it was about Boris Johnson's power grab.

Why do posters call Urmstongran Ug ?

Urmstongran

You are your usual charming self tonight I see varian. Why the need to be insulting? I never resort to such comments about posters yet I’m expected to put up with them.

Well I try not to be rude personally. And I do appreciate the fact that you do reply, even when you know your replies are not likely to be positively welcomed.

Your replies do scare me though. As said WTO means being ruled by a large of unknown unelected bureaucrats, much worse that being part ruled by EU MPs we have elected ourselves (not our fault so many do not vote in such elections) and at the top table, part of the decisions.

WTO would give us NO representation, NO say, NO influence.

And a border has to be, on every bit we share with the EU- that was always clear, however vague Brexit was otherwise. The UK is now flaming all the EU regulations on workers' rights, pesticides, additives, water treatment, husbandry, drugs, and so many other things, with so many more to come.

So the EU is absolutely right in insisting those products, produced with much lower standards, and increasingly so, as more and more EU regs are done away with, do not cross over the border and onto EU markets. Makes total sense.

So it is hard not to get angry, sarcastic and at times, more... because the whole country is being trashed, and most of its people going down with the sinking ship. Very hard.

Over to you ug 😄

I’d have gone WTA from the off. Then got around the negotiating table

I assume you mean WTO, as I don’t the the tennis authorities much care about British trade.

I have some polite questions: you would be happy having the terms and conditions of all trade in goods dictated by 165 unelected officials?

What would you do about agreements on specific sectors? You are, I am sure, au fait with how many such agreements the USA and Australia, for example, have with the EU, in order to avoid all trade being on WTO terms. Which sectors would you have negotiated separately for, and how quickly could that have been achieved?

To what extent would you have been able to negotiate tariff variations - specifically please - taking into account WTO favoured nation rules?

How would you have reassured businesses about non-tariff barriers? What would you have done to mitigate additional costs related to these?

I’m sure you know that WTO rules apply only to goods. What would you have negotiated with the EU in regard to services? Which would you have prioritised, and how quickly could agreements have been put in place for those? How would you mitigate the impact during any negotiation period?

With regard to your post on Northern Ireland: how would you have ensured the integrity of the Good Friday Agreement was maintained? Which elements of Brexit conflict with the self-determination of Northern Ireland agreed in the GFA, and how would your proposals have alleviated these?