I prefer threads about blowjobs, as it happens, but if you insist.
You giant fucking racist.
Now can we get back to talking about made up sex lives for my vicarious thrills. Thanks.
2 Likes
If you think there’s anything fictional about my claiming not to have received a single blowjob from my ex-wife after our wedding day, then I suggest you review the evidence I submitted to the divorce court. 
3 Likes
Sadly going back on topic. According to some MPs, the EU isn’t acting in good faith.
If proven, and it’s easy enough to prove, we could walk away without owing the divorce money.
Ooh fuck. Liz Truss is involved.
1 Like
About time.
But really, how can anyone expect this bunch of incompetent cunts to negotiate anything resembling a decent trade deal with the EU if they can’t get something entirely in their control right?
3 Likes
Separate issue. There is no decent trade deal to be had.
There is an opportunity for us to get a deal if we become rule-takers and accept the jurisdiction of a foreign court.
But that’s not really Brexit, is it?
That is true, but do you really think we will get ANY decent trade deal with any other market that does not involve taking one up the arse…? We will have to compromise with the US in major way, taking all sorts of shit and relaxing many current rules and standards. It might in your view not be challenging ‘sovereignty’ but being beholden to any foreign power to get a deal (and we will be) is no different in principles… We may be ‘free’ to do any deal we like, but don’t believe the BS that we are free to chose what we compromise on and what we dont… like many have said… Brexit: swapping Brussels rules for those made in Washington…
1 Like
No deal is always better than a bad deal. Yes, bigger competitors can try and chance their arms, but we’ve always got the option to say no, either on a national or individual level.
That is simply not true with the European Court of Justice.
Let’s say your chlorinated chicken dystopia comes true. I’ll still be able to walk along the poultry section in the supermarket and make an informed choice. There will almost certainly be brands bigging up their farm fresh, free range and hygienic food practices and make a virtue of them.
I repeat, that is simply not true with the European Court of Justice.
No other nations are going to have that expectation of us.
I think you miss the point somewhat… what you say about choice will be true, whilst the regulations still demand details on packaging… and like you say, ‘I’ will have choice as I will be able to afford the better produce with a pre-brexit provenance. Those that cant afford a £15 chicken are as always the ones who will no longer have a choice… as UK mass producers have the EU rules removed and need to adopt the ‘cheaper’ practices of the importers to remain in business… It won’t be the ECJ determining choice, just the cost of decent quality goods.
Choice has always been the luxury of the wealthy. The EU legislation at least offered a better /safer product guarantee. Brexit has removed that.
1 Like
So how does the money paid to United Utilities “not to farm” increase our food standards?
The CAP has always been corrupt, always been about making less competitive farmers a bit of wonga and has nearly always resulted in higher food prices for the average consumer.
So yeah, while I agree that you have more choice if you’re rich, if the cost of your food doesn’t include propping up French agriculture, doesn’t include the cost of the common external tariff or bunging backhanders to utility companies that don’t actually farm, I’m sure the poor will have more choice too.
I cant profess to answer those more complex issues of the fiscal side of the EU decisions… but you cant simply use this as a rationale to be dismissive of the legislative measure relating to standards. Yes in part they are there to ensure a level playing field within the EU, but also to retain a minimum (higher than US) quality standard. If the standards set mean the EU becomes a closed market to those offering cheaper good not meeting those high standards then that is good as far as i`m concerned. It also means that for the less well off, even the budget produce is at least produced to the same standards … that will disappear. They will still get cheap chicken… but pumped with even more water, and bathed in chlorine to mask more lax production standards… Some ‘choice that’ … I suspect that wont be written on the packaging…
You can Google it. I’ve linked the Guardian article here numerous times.
The EU, through the CAP, was paying people that neither farmed nor needed the money, subsidies for not farming.
The common external tariff is scandalously, applied to things the EU cannot make itself. The cost of that racket is passed down to the consumer.
We can make a deal with anyone else in the world, and no-one can compel us to abide by “our courts must have jurisdiction in your courts”.
That’s what the EU wants. It is fucking unreasonable.
…BUt that is not the issue re quality standards and having this eroded by any new trade deals with the US and elsewhere… as an example of still having the terms and conditions outside our control with the bigger impact on those who have less cash in their pocket. Please stop trying to divert this onto CAP, to avoid answering the issue?
The CAP is not a diversion, and in my opinion, cannot be separated from food prices, which is where you’ve pitched your wagon.
I’ve also mentioned the ECJ and the common external tariff, again, both weighing on the consumer’s pocket, be it through taxation or hidden costs.
Eh no, I have not pitched on food prices… it’s pitched on food standards as a simple example of how despite your Brexit desires, we will still not be free of external compromise… and that IS free of CAP. Pleas at the very least do me the courtesy of addressing the point made, not the the one that you feel you can Better counter…
Coming to a supermarket and fast food outlet near you. How long before another covid virus pops up it’s ugly head?
I’ve already addressed it and raised it. Your average punter can choose what they buy. They weren’t able to choose about whether the ECJ would be a thing in their lives, nor whether they wanted to give UU a CAP backhander.
I said with my first sentences:-
No deal is always better than a bad deal. Yes, bigger competitors can try and chance their arms, but we’ve always got the option to say no, either on a national or individual level.
How is that not addressing your point about getting stiffed?
Does not address the simple issue that we are just as beholden to foreign Rules as will be part of any trade deal and thus we are not as ‘sovereign’ as you wish to believe… the poor will have a choice to buys shite if go without, whilst the middle classes can still go to Waitrose and buy organic which they can afford… Brexit does not mean more choice or affordability for the poor… you know it really, but won’t ever admit it.
I challenge you to go round to the poorest who will have less quality on their plates and tell them the chlorinated shit they are eating is Better for their children because they got to choose it as opposed having it thrust upon them by CAP and the ECJ…
We are not. That is false. No country in the world, other than representatives of the EU, will put forward their own body as an arbiter.
What about that do you not get?