…with curry sauce…
1 Like
Of course dripping down a dodgy 3 piece suit after a family wedding
1 Like
Hmm, buried in the article
France has also given sugar-beet farmers special permission to use neonicotinoids.
But…I saw this on twitter the other day and was slightly concerned until I saw that it is being used on Sugar Beet which doesn’t have flowers and isn’t visited by bees.
It is also being used in a small and controlled way, as it is in France.
And the decisions to allow them to use it was agreed before we left the EU, it wasn’t taken this week…but don’t take my word for it, read this guy’s views…
Merely sharing the post Brexit news boys and girls, make of it what you will.
He has not stated why though, only suggesting its OK because other allow ‘emergency use’ - not really a rational argument
Sorry, my post was confusing, you need to read the thread in the first tweet, the second was an afterthought that I saw in his thread…
Sorry, don’t visit twatter…
Your problem then as it’s a very reasoned and cognitive argument…
A thread by Tom Clarke
Ok, It’s confession time:
My name is Tom. I’m a nature friendly-farmer, anti-Brexit, climate change activist.
Over 15% of my farm is dedicated to measures which enhance nature.
I also back @NFUSugar application for emergency use of neonicotinoids in beet.
Here’s why 
/1
I back the broad ban on neonicotinoid pesticides. I don’t want to use insecticides at all, and we had grown too dependent on these chemicals.
There are other ways to control pests and I’m at the forefront of pursuing these. /2
But, Climate Change is wreaking havoc on all the natural systems which our farming and food supply relies.
Last winter was exceptionally mild in England, with few frosts.
Record-breaking numbers of aphids survived winter. They transmit a kind of beet malaria (virus yellows) /3
This disease decimates crop yields. Making growing the crop uneconomic. Some growers have lost 80% of their crop. Farmers are giving up growing beet for the first time in 100 years. /4
Longer term brilliant plant scientists will develop varieties which are resistant to the diseases spread by these insects. But these solutions are some years off.
In the meantime, sugar beet crops do provide considerable ecological benefits in our crop rotation (cont) /5
Just one example;
By providing vital food sources for endangered migratory swans who fly 3,000 miles from the Russian Arctic to overwinter here /6
And this really isn’t about Brexit, or lowering our standards compared to other countries. If anything the reverse, we are catching up with 
, where some countries have used these chems in beet ever since the EU wide ‘ban’ /7 (fwi.co.uk/arable/france-…)
So if these chems are ‘bee-killers’ and been banned how have other countries justified continuing to use them?
By using provisions in the EU laws which allow emergency use of otherwise unpermitted chemicals when independent scientific experts agree it is justified. /8
Conditions are applied to the emergency approval.
EU scientists have agreed that evidence suggesting use as a seed dressing (a tiny amount) in a non-flowering crop with conditions on following crops is acceptable.
We’ll see if UK scientists agree. /9 (fwi.co.uk/news/farmers-w…)
I do loads on my farm to restore and enhance nature and I wouldn’t put that at risk.
I shared a platform with eminent scientists just last Thursday exploring ways we can all do better at protecting and restoring pollinators on farms and in gardens /10
But why even carry on growing beet if the virus makes it uneconomic?
Well, firstly, plenty of farmers agree and have stopped.
But if enough stop, the homegrown sugar industry will fold, and probably won’t come back- like in 
.
Why does that matter, we can just import it? /11
Yes we could.
We could close down our homegrown sugar industry, and import all our sugar.
That sugar would come from European Beet growers who had approved use of the seed treatments.
Or it would come from imported sugar cane…
Not all good news… /12
The (fully public) application for emergency use is temporary and comes with strict conditions. No seed would be treated unless an independent scientific forecast proved it would be necessary.
Even then growers could choose other tools.
This is a very high bar. /13
Meanwhile, I and others will continue our frantic search for other measures which could bridge the gap until plant breeders can develop resistant varieties.
As I talk about with the brilliant @BBRO_Beet here /14
not using twatter not a ‘problem’ BT, Is suggest its good for you. It is well constructed argument, but its a bit of a circular one… ‘we have fucked the planet, so now we have to resort to this shit to keep things going for an industry that is no longer economic in the UK anyway…’
Surely, this being the case, we could unilaterally continue to ban them… a much more appropriate use of our ‘independence’? We could also ban imports from countries that use them…
… As I have said previously, its not about where the rules are made, but about what rules are made
Heathen.
So you’re okay with rules being made anywhere, using any system of government, as long as you perceive them to be the correct rules?
How does that account for people that might disagree with your view, and if that system of governance is not a democracy, what agency would they have to change things in your scenario?
It’s all the bare faced lies by the government that really pisses me off. They are starting to come in thick and fast now, and we’re only ten days in. This latest attempt at conning the public into believing that a decision they have made is really the fault of the EU has quickly been exposed as the lie that it is. Just like the boasting on January 1st of the ban on pulse fishing as an example of ‘taking back control’ from the EU, even though it isn’t true, France banned it ages ago as could any EU member state. The latest is the much trumpeted abolishment of VAT on sanitary products, I believe this was one of Pap’s Brexit bonuses on his little list the other day on here. Germany scrapped VAT on tampons and sanitary products in 2019. Ireland has zero VAT on sanitary products. The last time I looked they are both members of the EU. Scotland abolished VAT on these products last year. The UK could have done so after new EU legislation in 2016.
Boris Johnson in November 1915. - “We’ll be able to cut VAT on things we can’t under EU rules - sanitary products, you name it”.
In October 2015 a Labour motion in the HOC to remove the so called ‘Tampon Tax’ was defeated by just 18 votes as Tory MPs were whipped to vote against, just three Tory MPs defied the whip and they were all men. Shame on the female Tory MPs. Johnson, Gove, Rees Mogg,the ERG, all these hypocrites voted it down. After the widespread condemnation this created from women’s advocates the government agree to an incremental reduction of VAT, in stages, mysteriously last years stage didn’t happen. Could this be because Johnson wanted to save it, beat his chest on January 1st and boast about his (completely false) triumph? Surely not!
These people are con men, a bunch of liars and grifters, in plain sight. It’s just so easy for them, with so many gullible people out there desperate to believe the lies, and refusing to believe the evidence of their own eyes.
When, after just ten days, the ‘Brexit Benefits’ that are being pushed and boasted about are falling apart, any real, tangible benefits that will be understood as such by the man/woman on the street, must be very thin on the ground indeed.
3 Likes
straw man again there pap… doing a bit of Chubby Checker there again, ‘Twist and shout’ - I have not said anything about agreeing with the rules or not, but some things are common sense… democracy is always shit when you dont agree with the outcome, but some things are common sense…
Another Independent article another sensationalist headline and then you read the article.
The UK wanted to extend Visa free travel to the musicians and more of their entourage (than the EU allow) but reduce it to 30 days, the EU rejected this!
And then this bit at the end…
It is now a matter for each EU member state to decide whether to demand work visas, in the absence of a bloc-wide agreement.
1 Like
Straw man argument is quite easily the most used riposte whether it’s the correct term to use or not, it makes me chuckle.
There are far better terms, usages and figures of speech to use.
The English language is a glorious thing, use it mother fuckers.
Not my intention. You said it doesn’t matter where rules are made. It’s the rules that matter themselves.
Is that your position? Do other considerations, such as system of governance etc matter?
I am struggling to understand the point you are making… Because the article is in the Independent it can’t be true? The story is in countless publications, including many music trade papers. The performing arts organizations are up in arms about it, nobody, except for government apologists believe the tosh about the UK offering a better deal but the EU rejected it. The current visa arrangements of 90 days visa free for performing artists, as the article points out, is enjoyed by countries as diverse as The USA and Saudi Arabia. Countries normally have a permit-free exemption in their deals with the EU, which offers the arrangement as standard. A civilized arrangement by countries who recognize the value of music and culture generally. This government wouldn’t recognize culture if it jumped up and bit them on the arse. Yet people swallow the bullshit that they spout, somehow a 30 day exemption is better than a 90 day one. Musicians and artistes now having to negotiate visa arrangements individually with EU countries, with all the nonsense that would involve, is somehow an improvement on having the permit free arrangement of 90 days and is a good thing. Good for who? It’s nonsense. The EU offered their standard 90 day exemption that’s offered to other countries, the British government turned it down because they are being rabidly dogmatic about ending any form of free movement, then tried to pretend they’d tried to negotiate a better deal,(30 better than 90 days)!
The EU offered a standard exemption of 90 days, both ways.
The UK said it can only be 30 days,(certainly for EU performers coming this way), we’re special.
The EU says, this is our standard arrangement, we’re not changing it just for you, 90 days or nothing.
The UK says “nothing then”.
End of negotiations.
What this is really about is the 90 day exemption would blow a hole in Priti Patel’s nasty little agenda and plans. Can’t be allowed to happen, i’m afraid. Sadly the degree to which we defend our shores from ‘them out there’ is the degree to which we imprison ourselves within them.
1 Like
My point is the headline could easily have been “The EU Rejected Visa-Free tours be musicians in UK”
It was a negotiation, which the EU rejected outright, I’m sure they’ll get back around the table on it as both sides want to get something sorted.
This is what i am really fucked off with… a Government that seems to be more interested in scoring points, or appeasing the little englenders than in simply doing what is sensible and common sense… seems all about trying to demonstrate we have control irrespective of whether the decision is logical or makes sense… @pap, that is my point when I say it matters not where a decision is made but what that decision is… for the slight majority, Brexit was always about populism, not about principle and nothing you can say will alter that fact.
1 Like