His Divine Shadow posted:

If that's defined as 18 then I guess I escaped by 1 year...

Zephro posted:

In the short term British products will still be sellable in the EU. Until A50 actually happens we have to follow EU product-safety regs and even then they'll still be British law unless we actively repeal them. As time goes on that will change and if we want to keep selling into the EU then yes, we'll have to comply. We just won't be able to have any influence on what those regs say.

quote:

Unless goods seeking entrance to the EU Single Market (i.e. British exports) conform to the regulations which comprise the framework, they are not permitted entry. Thus, the assertion that, if the UK left the EU, “it would continue to have access to the EU’s markets …”, is simply not true. And ,  to spell it out,  if it’s not true, it’s false.
With or without tariff issues being resolved ,  which are actually irrelevant to the access issue , the claim is false. Tariffs do not prevent access to a market. They simply impose a tax on entry. The actual barrier is regulatory conformity,  what is known generally as a non-tariff barrier (NTB) or, sometimes, as technical barrier to trade (TBT).
Nevertheless, it is generally recognised that, in order to access the Single Market, goods must comply with EU rules. Conformity is the way of overcoming the NTB. But what advocates of the WTO option have not realised is that there is more to it than that . Much more. Potential exporters not only have to ensure their goods conform, they must provide evidence of their so doing. This requires putting the goods through a recognised system of what is known as “conformity assessment”.
...
The fundamentals are quite simple. The point about the Single Market is that border checks have been eliminated. The common rules are monitored by relevant national authorities and there is mutual recognition of standards. Thus, if you so desire, you can load a truck with grommets in Glasgow and ship them all the way to Alexandroupoli on the Turkish border, with just the occasional document check.
But the moment we leave the EU, this stops. Your component manufacturer may still comply with exactly the same standards, but the testing houses and the regulatory agencies are no longer recognised. The consignment has no valid paperwork. And, without it, it must be subject to border checks, visual inspection and physical testing.

What that means in practice is that the customs inspector detains your shipment and takes samples to send to an approved testing house (one for the inspector, one for the office pool, one for the stevedores and one for the lab is often the case). Your container inspection is typically about £700 and detention costs about £80 a day for the ten days or so it will take to get your results back. Add the testing fee and you’re paying an extra £2,000 to deliver a container into the EU.
Apart from the costs, the delays are highly damaging. Many European industries have highly integrated supply chains, relying on components shipped from multiple countries right across Europe, working to a “just in time” regime. If even a small number of consignments are delayed, the whole system starts to snarl up.
Then, as European ports start having to deal with the unexpected burden of thousands of inspections, and a backlog of testing as a huge range of products sit at the ports awaiting results, the system will grind to a halt. It won’t just slow down. It will stop. Trucks waiting to cross the Channel at Dover will be backed up the motorway all the way to London.
For animal products exported to the EU, the situation is even worse — if that is possible. Products from third countries (which is now the UK) are permitted entry only through designated border inspection posts (BIPs). Only at these can they be inspected and, if necessary, detained for testing. But, for trade between the UK and EU member states, there are no designated BIPs. Until one (or more) has been nominated and equipped trade in these products stops dead — say goodbye to a £12 billion export trade.
If the way out of the country becomes blocked, very quickly the return route gets blocked and incoming trade from the EU starts suffering. In the UK, goods from the EU are no longer delivered. Trade slows. Manufacturers which depend on imported components start struggling and then have to close. And while the naysayers talk about losing three million jobs if we leave the EU, we are looking at twice that and more — seven or eight million jobs are at stake.
At this point, you might say, “But how can this possibly happen?”

The WTO Option advocates will tell you that countries such as China, the United States and Australia all trade with the EU without formal trade agreements, and therefore operate under WTO rules. They don’t have these problems so why would the UK? The answer, however, is tragically simple. These countries don’t rely solely on WTO rules.... There are many different types of agreement and many which involve trade, either directly or indirectly, which are not registered with the WTO. These, for our WTO Option advocates, remain under the radar. To them, they are invisible.
Yet one of the most important types of trade agreement is the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) on conformity assessment. This gets round the problem of border checks, as the EU will then recognise the paperwork on product testing and conformity certification. Throw in an agreement on Customs cooperation — to ensure that official paperwork and systems mesh — and you are on your way to trouble-free border crossings.
China has a Mutual Recognition Agreement, signed in May 2014, the United States has one on conformity assessment which runs to 81 pages, agreed in 1999. Even Australia has one. All of these are outside the remit of the WTO but they are nonetheless trade agreements, and vital ones at that.

Gort posted:

What British industry

Do people think Yorkshire tea grows in the Yorkshire Tea Plantations or something

Gort posted:

What British industry

Do people think Yorkshire tea grows in the Yorkshire Tea Plantations or something

haakman posted:

Yes, my point was simply that Leave campaigned on a platform of EU REGULATIONS BAD etc. Some of the (slightly) more rational leave voters I have contact with voted based on the whole issue of sovereignty and having to comply with EU regulations. It's slightly loving hilarious that in order to continue trading with the EU we will have to put in place regulations which almost mimic EU regulations.

Guavanaut posted:

Yeah but you can have a two-tier system with EU conforming products for export and subpar products that explode for domestic. Your quality of life will be better when you can buy domestic products cheaper because they're complete trash.

Zephro posted:

We can subsist on Tregothnan tea, which is grown in Cornwall, and which is proper nice

Oh dear me posted:

The Tregothnan estate is the Boscawens' place (Viscounts Falmouth, exceedingly rich landowners, arseholes).

Gonzo McFee posted:

tooterfish posted:

Lesson 1: you can get away with loving kids as long as they're poor, no one will care.

tooterfish posted:

Lesson 1: you can get away with loving kids as long as you're rich, no one will care.

Jedit posted:

Fixed for regrettable reality. It's the reason they're having trouble finding a high powered lawyer to run the paedophile enquiry.

quote:

Well, that was a highly successful three-month campaign to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn. There’s nothing like spending all summer on a project that proves worthwhile and repays the effort.

If Angela Eagle and Owen Smith were generals in a medieval army, they would report back to their commander: “We fired incessantly for three months and have brought such damage to our opponent’s army they now have 100,000 more soldiers than when we started, sir. And I’m not sure how, but although we’re fighting in Belgium, we seem to have given them Wales.”

Corbyn should ask them to do it every year; by 2025 he’d be crowned King of Europe.

Even more impressive was the way the plotters all agreed, after the result, that “this shows the lessons Jeremy needs to learn, and he has to reach out”.

Next they’ll ask Owen Smith to fight Tyson Fury, and as Owen is dragged away by paramedics, Stephen Kinnock will announce: “This shows the lessons Tyson has to learn. From now on he needs to look more skinny and wear glasses and reach out if he knows what’s good for him”.

This is an exciting development in democracy, that the side who won the least number of votes decides what the lessons are that have to be learned. Maybe this is how the anti-Corbyn section of Labour hopes to govern after a general election. They’ll say to the Tories: “As you won a majority of 190, you have to learn to reach out and fill your cabinet with me and my mates”.


Even so, the plotters made an important point: that Corbyn must reach out to those who already tried to unite the party by calling him a moronic pitiful unelectable pile of steaming goat sick for the last year.

Instead of being divisive, as he was last time by offering them jobs in the shadow Cabinet from which they resigned, he should let them pick their own jobs, and if they don’t fancy doing them one day, let them bring in games.

All the plotters agreed on the need for unity, and many of them displayed that straight away by not turning up to Corbyn’s speech. But Corbyn himself ruined the unity by turning up to it himself, rather than uniting with his colleagues by saying he couldn’t be bothered to say anything so he was popping down the pub.

Some MPs will soon resume their commitment to unity by insisting Corbyn is hopeless, on every TV station, one by one through the news channels, the cartoon channels and the GOD channels. Then on a porn channel, John Mann will knock on a door to say: “Hope you’ll be voting Labour in the council by-election”. But a woman in rubber will reply: “I certainly won’t be voting for you”, so he’ll say: “I suppose that’s because we’ve been very, very bad and chosen an unelectable leader”, then lay down and scream: “We’ve been so irresponsible by saying we’ll renationalise the Royal Mail!” while getting thrashed on the arse with an egg whisk.

Others will prove their loyalty as they did before, by texting helpful snippets of information to journalists from meetings, such as: “OMG! Apparently Corbyn wants to abolish the army and replace it with a salad”.

The other demand from the side celebrating its achievement of getting fewer votes than someone they say is unelectable is there can be no threats of deselection. There should be no half measures with this; if Jess Phillips announces: “I’d rather vote for Donald Trump than Corbyn, that’s why I broke into his house and poisoned his fish”, that’s her right as a loyal party member and any talk of deselection would be divisive.

The next issue Corbyn must address now he’s been humbled by winning the election is the problem of all these new members. For example, an investigation into Liverpool Riverside complains there has been “an explosion in membership” which now “meets several times a month”.

That sounds sinister, because when has there ever been any need to do two things in a month?

And what are they all doing, joining like that? No wonder proper Labour members are suspicious. They should have to pass a test, clambering across an assault course, or swimming through piranhas.

As any business leader will confirm, there’s nothing more damaging to an enterprise than an explosion in people demanding your product. This is why Bill Gates always insists, when a new version of Microsoft Windows comes out, that anyone who asks for one is told they can’t have it as they’re almost certainly a member of the Workers Revolutionary Party.

One MP grumbled: “It’s all right these new people joining, but will they go knocking on doors at the election?” We can’t know the answer to that, which is why the best way to ensure they’re enthusiastic enough to knock on doors is to tell them they’re all infiltrating scum and they can sod off somewhere else with their several meetings a month.

If they still join, they should have to prove their loyalty by not only knocking on doors, but when someone answers, say: “Our leader’s unelectable so I don’t know why I’m bothering”.

But most importantly, not one of the plotters has fallen into the trap of accepting they may have made the odd mistake, and perhaps shouldn’t have all resigned to get rid of their elected leader, or whined too many people have joined their party, or gone to court to ban their own voters, or insisted people supported Corbyn because they’d had their arm twisted by Trotskyists, because it’s obviously Corbyn that needs to learn the lessons from the result.

TomViolence posted:

Was this country just built from the ground up (or more likely from the very bowels of hell itself up) expressly for the purpose of fiddling taxes and diddling kids?

haakman posted:

Yes, my point was simply that Leave campaigned on a platform of EU REGULATIONS BAD etc. Some of the (slightly) more rational leave voters I have contact with voted based on the whole issue of sovereignty and having to comply with EU regulations. It's slightly loving hilarious that in order to continue trading with the EU we will have to put in place regulations which almost mimic EU regulations.

Jose posted:

Since the guardian are currently stopping me reading it i had a look on the independent site

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-plotters-blairites-mps-learn-lessons-unite-party-last-few-months-a7338136.html

TomViolence posted:

Was this country just built from the ground up (or more likely from the very bowels of hell itself up) expressly for the purpose of fiddling taxes and diddling kids? Is there something down there, something dark and nameless and ageless and faceless growing fat on our misery, waiting until it's time to emerge? Are we retaining trident not to deter other nuclear powers, but instead as a final failsafe in case the dark heart of Great Britain should some day wake?

Jose posted:

Since the guardian are currently stopping me reading it i had a look on the independent site

Gort posted:

What British industry

Do people think Yorkshire tea grows in the Yorkshire Tea Plantations or something

LemonDrizzle posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssgWz8XdrIM

ah, question time

LemonDrizzle posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssgWz8XdrIM

ah, question time

brian posted:

why is the comment section praising him when he looks like that and talks like that, is it the same appeal of a farage or something??

Pesmerga posted:

It's funny, you can immediately dismiss anything the guy is about to say as complete shite before he opens his mouth. He probably types away angrily on his Men Going Their Own Way blog about 'loving feminazis'.

Plucky Brit posted:

You judge people's contributions to discussions based on their physical appearance? That's very sad.

Pesmerga posted:

I have developed a form of intellectual shorthand for identifying idiots. If they refer to people by saying 'Legend', they're a pillock.