I'm comfortable in saying that Hitler had a better moustache during his WW1 days.

Edit: for context, as this looks like a very odd post at the top of a page, an image from the article linked in the previous post:

Rumours are that this is up in CCHQ



Ah, it seems it is a repurposing of this one:



I think I'd have opted for quietly removing it being the less embarrassing option.

aggi wrote:Rumours are that this is up in CCHQ

[*img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EIhkoMTXkAE ... name=small[/img]

Ah, it seems it is a repurposing of this one:

[*img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EA0-MA3WsAAN3Le.jpg[/img]

I think I'd have opted for quietly removing it being the less embarrassing option.

The Tories withdrew their withdrawal agreement Not Labour, or the Lib Dems, or anyone else. The Tories did that because they didn't like the timetable parliament set.

But idiots won't accept that, of course.

A UK-USA trade deal:

"In the US, producers adhere to a "Defect Levels Handbook," which sets out the maximum number of foreign bodies like maggots, insect fragments and mould that can be in food products before they are put on the market.

For example, US producers are allowed to include up to 30 insect fragments in a 100-gram jar of peanut butter; as well as 11 rodent hairs in a 25-gram container of paprika; or 3 milligrams of mammalian excreta (typically rat or mouse excrement) per each pound of ginger.

In the EU there are no allowable limits for foreign bodies in food products. MPs have told Business Insider they are worried that a UK-US trade deal designed by Brexiteers could open the floodgates to contaminated food."

Spijed wrote:A UK-USA trade deal:

"In the US, producers adhere to a "Defect Levels Handbook," which sets out the maximum number of foreign bodies like maggots, insect fragments and mould that can be in food products before they are put on the market.

For example, US producers are allowed to include up to 30 insect fragments in a 100-gram jar of peanut butter; as well as 11 rodent hairs in a 25-gram container of paprika; or 3 milligrams of mammalian excreta (typically rat or mouse excrement) per each pound of ginger.

In the EU there are no allowable limits for foreign bodies in food products. MPs have told Business Insider they are worried that a UK-US trade deal designed by Brexiteers could open the floodgates to contaminated food."

You don't have to eat American food if you don't wish.

But there are plenty of American products on sale over here already.

Spijed wrote:A UK-USA trade deal:

"In the US, producers adhere to a "Defect Levels Handbook," which sets out the maximum number of foreign bodies like maggots, insect fragments and mould that can be in food products before they are put on the market.

For example, US producers are allowed to include up to 30 insect fragments in a 100-gram jar of peanut butter; as well as 11 rodent hairs in a 25-gram container of paprika; or 3 milligrams of mammalian excreta (typically rat or mouse excrement) per each pound of ginger.

In the EU there are no allowable limits for foreign bodies in food products. MPs have told Business Insider they are worried that a UK-US trade deal designed by Brexiteers could open the floodgates to contaminated food."

Be honest after a US-UK trade deal you are never going to eat anything again are you

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:Be honest after a US-UK trade deal you are never going to eat anything again are you

Make sure to buy stocks in Proctor & Gamble, because pepto-bismol is going to become really valuable.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Make sure to buy stocks in Proctor & Gamble, because pepto-bismol is going to become really valuable.

Probably skip financial advice from your good self, cheers though

Looks like a big step back towards no-deal with Johnson saying that no extension (or vote on it) will be allowed at the end of the transition period. (Assuming the tories win the election with a big enough majority to get their WA through.)

Given how things have gone so far I wouldn't be particularly confident in us agreeing a decent trade deal in just under a year and no trade deal means the next step would be No Deal (obviously there are other potential steps such as Johnson losing the house, again).

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:Probably skip financial advice from your good self, cheers though

It was a joke, you know, like Brexit.

Impossible for us to agree a decent deal in the timescale, unless we stay very close to EU-UK regulatory alignment.

if we do that, then that is red rag to a bull to the right of the Conservative Party who run things now.

And more importantly, more lies from the government to moderate Conservative MPs which proves they can't be trusted (again)

I mean, how much more evidence do you need that this lot are completely untrustworthy on anything under Johnson?

Jakubclaret wrote:Do historians carry more weight than a sister in law.

http://jmu-journalism.org.uk/did-hitler ... liverpool/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I’m enough of a historian, to know not to be too free with definites, but I agree their does seem to be a fair consensus that he spent at least some time in Liverpool, though exact timescale remains contentious. But as we find out regularly, what has been assumed about all sorts of things for hundreds of years and even taught in schools is being overturned on a weekly basis as new discoveries are made.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Impossible for us to agree a decent deal in the timescale, unless we stay very close to EU-UK regulatory alignment.

if we do that, then that is red rag to a bull to the right of the Conservative Party who run things now.

And more importantly, more lies from the government to moderate Conservative MPs which proves they can't be trusted (again)

I mean, how much more evidence do you need that this lot are completely untrustworthy on anything under Johnson?

I really don’t see what the problem is, we’ve been working to different standards on products for different markets, forever. It is not that long ago CE markings were made compulsory. So we work to different standards... we do it already.

elwaclaret wrote:I’m enough of a historian, to know not to be too free with definites, but I agree their does seem to be a fair consensus that he spent at least some time in Liverpool, though exact timescale remains contentious. But as we find out regularly, what has been assumed about all sorts of things for hundreds of years and even taught in schools is being overturned on a weekly basis as new discoveries are made.

I can't argue with that, discoveries do get updated & what we believed was fact turns out to be fiction.

Spijed wrote:A UK-USA trade deal:

"In the US, producers adhere to a "Defect Levels Handbook," which sets out the maximum number of foreign bodies like maggots, insect fragments and mould that can be in food products before they are put on the market.

For example, US producers are allowed to include up to 30 insect fragments in a 100-gram jar of peanut butter; as well as 11 rodent hairs in a 25-gram container of paprika; or 3 milligrams of mammalian excreta (typically rat or mouse excrement) per each pound of ginger.

In the EU there are no allowable limits for foreign bodies in food products. MPs have told Business Insider they are worried that a UK-US trade deal designed by Brexiteers could open the floodgates to contaminated food."

This is a fairly common misconception. For years, it has been accepted that all over Europe we have (in most respects) the same standards. Whatever we produce and sell in this country must meet the standards of all the countries in the single market.

This is an exception, not the norm. Virtually all trade agreements are much looser than this. So any suggestion that we can tell the USA that they must clean up their act and must have zero tolerance of foreign bodies in their own domestically-produced and consumed food, will not work and will not be considered; nor of course will the opposite. The law for selling goods in the UK will remain at zero tolerance, wherever produced; and perhaps the USA will let us export our not-suitable-for-sale-in-the-UK rejects to them. Who knows. But standards at domestic level will not be affected.

dsr wrote:This is a fairly common misconception. For years, it has been accepted that all over Europe we have (in most respects) the same standards. Whatever we produce and sell in this country must meet the standards of all the countries in the single market.

This is an exception, not the norm. Virtually all trade agreements are much looser than this. So any suggestion that we can tell the USA that they must clean up their act and must have zero tolerance of foreign bodies in their own domestically-produced and consumed food, will not work and will not be considered; nor of course will the opposite. The law for selling goods in the UK will remain at zero tolerance, wherever produced; and perhaps the USA will let us export our not-suitable-for-sale-in-the-UK rejects to them. Who knows. But standards at domestic level will not be affected.

The only way standards at domestic level will be unaffected is if we have equally strict standards for imports as we currently do for domestically traded products. And there's no way any FTA with the US is going to allow us to require that they trade with us based on the strict standards we currently enjoy. We don't have the negotiating leverage to demand that, because we left the trading bloc that gave us more leverage than we will have outside of it.

dsr wrote:This is a fairly common misconception. For years, it has been accepted that all over Europe we have (in most respects) the same standards. Whatever we produce and sell in this country must meet the standards of all the countries in the single market.

This is an exception, not the norm. Virtually all trade agreements are much looser than this. So any suggestion that we can tell the USA that they must clean up their act and must have zero tolerance of foreign bodies in their own domestically-produced and consumed food, will not work and will not be considered; nor of course will the opposite. The law for selling goods in the UK will remain at zero tolerance, wherever produced; and perhaps the USA will let us export our not-suitable-for-sale-in-the-UK rejects to them. Who knows. But standards at domestic level will not be affected.

So that produces a one way trade deal on food as what you’re saying is that food produced to US standards can never be sold here but we will be able to export to the US. I’m not sure that’s what they have in mind!

martin_p wrote:So that produces a one way trade deal on food as what you’re saying is that food produced to US standards can never be sold here but we will be able to export to the US. I’m not sure that’s what they have in mind!

Food which does not meet UK standards cannot be sold in the UK. This is how it is now and this is how it will be in future. No business is allowed to sell goods in the UK which do not meet UK standards, no matter where they come from.

Imploding Turtle wrote:The only way standards at domestic level will be unaffected is if we have equally strict standards for imports as we currently do for domestically traded products. And there's no way any FTA with the US is going to allow us to require that they trade with us based on the strict standards we currently enjoy. We don't have the negotiating leverage to demand that, because we left the trading bloc that gave us more leverage than we will have outside of it.

We already have equally strict standards for imports as for domestically traded products. This won't change.

dsr wrote:We already have equally strict standards for imports as for domestically traded products. This won't change.

So the US will be happy with a deal where we can sell them stuff but they can’t sell us stuff? That’s what you seem to be saying.

dsr wrote:We already have equally strict standards for imports as for domestically traded products. This won't change.

******* pipe dream, mate.

martin_p wrote:So the US will be happy with a deal where we can sell them stuff but they can’t sell us stuff? That’s what you seem to be saying.

That's a mighty leap of imagination. What I am trying to say is that we already have equally strict standards for imports as for domestically traded products, and this won't change. It's a very big step from there to say that the UK and USA will sign a trade deal and to specify the terms.

But I think perhaps you haven't quite grasped the point. At present, the USA can sell us basically any food they want as long as it meets UK standards. In future, this will still be the case.

dsr wrote:That's a mighty leap of imagination. What I am trying to say is that we already have equally strict standards for imports as for domestically traded products, and this won't change. It's a very big step from there to say that the UK and USA will sign a trade deal and to specify the terms.

But I think perhaps you haven't quite grasped the point. At present, the USA can sell us basically any food they want as long as it meets UK standards. In future, this will still be the case.

It's not a leap at all. The reason we have such good trade arrangements now is because our market (the entire EU) is very lucrative for non-EU traders to enter, this means we can demand more.

Out market will be far less lucrative for non-EU traders than the EU market, and so we will have to offer them more incentive to enter it. How do you think that incentive will manifest itself if not by relaxed import standards?

dsr wrote:That's a mighty leap of imagination. What I am trying to say is that we already have equally strict standards for imports as for domestically traded products, and this won't change. It's a very big step from there to say that the UK and USA will sign a trade deal and to specify the terms.

But I think perhaps you haven't quite grasped the point. At present, the USA can sell us basically any food they want as long as it meets UK standards. In future, this will still be the case.

You’re going to have to help me then because I’m not sure what’s in it for the US if all the things you say are true, I.e our standards will remain the same and we won’t be selling food that doesn’t meet those standards. This means the only way the US can sell us food is if they change their own standards. Is that what you think will happen? If not how exactly are the US going to sell us food.

martin_p wrote:You’re going to have to help me then because I’m not sure what’s in it for the US if all the things you say are true, I.e our standards will remain the same and we won’t be selling food that doesn’t meet those standards. This means the only way the US can sell us food is if they change their own standards. Is that what you think will happen? If not how exactly are the US going to sell us food.

No, you still don't get it. Take a look at Californian wine, for example. They export lots of it to the UK. Now, is that because the USA rules and regulations on wine are exactly the same at they are here? I doubt it. But the stuff they sell here does meet whatever specifications on quality the UK sets.

This is not like the EU. Under EU rules, everything that Germany wishes to export to the UK must by definition be made to UK standards, because UK standards are also German standards. This will not apply to the US. They can make stuff to UK standards for export to the UK, and to US standards for domestic purposes - and they don't have to be the same standards.

dsr wrote:No, you still don't get it. Take a look at Californian wine, for example. They export lots of it to the UK. Now, is that because the USA rules and regulations on wine are exactly the same at they are here? I doubt it. But the stuff they sell here does meet whatever specifications on quality the UK sets.

This is not like the EU. Under EU rules, everything that Germany wishes to export to the UK must by definition be made to UK standards, because UK standards are also German standards. This will not apply to the US. They can make stuff to UK standards for export to the UK, and to US standards for domestic purposes - and they don't have to be the same standards.

UK standards will be lower. They will have to be, because that's how weaker markets attract trade. And our market will definitely be weaker than the EU's market. It's a fairly basic principle of capitalism.

Take these axioms:

- Where two trade blocs have differing standards across any given sector, regulatory alignment of a 3rd party with one bloc comes at the expense of distancing from the standards of the other across the same sector

- Concurrent productions lines incurs greater costs

- Increasing or decreasing product standards raises or lowers production costs respectively

- Exceeding regulatory standards can make products uncompetitive

- Product standards are typically for the benefit of the consumer or the environment

- The UK accommodating the Anglosphere and southern hemisphere at the expense of Europe defies geographic logic

- The US will negotiate in the interest of US companies

It's not inconceivable to see how US companies striving for UK market access, commercially incapable of running concurrent production lines to meet differing US and UK standards, might lobby for the US to pressure the UK to adopt lower import standards in alignment with the US. It's also not inconceivable to see how the Tory government, playing to the gallery of its supporters adamant on a bite of Anglosphere and imperial nostalgia, and acting on it's own low-regulation, free-market impulses best exemplified in the US, through material or political necessity - or even desperation - might acquiesce to US standards, should a disorderly Brexit put strain on the UK economy. Lowering of standards would require UK companies to meet the new, lower standards of the cheaper imports lest they become uncompetitive against cheaper made imports. Therefore, through economic forces, domestic UK producers resolve to produce in accordance with the lower US standards. Smaller UK companies either sell exclusively to the US/UK, or invest in concurrent production lines to meet EU standards. This benefits larger oligopolies with the resources to do so, driving out competition. The choice to pay for more expensive goods made to higher standards is a luxury not afforded to everyone, and this fact will inform the demand for higher value goods.

We'd be adopting junk, and doing so at the expense of our geographically closest and most commercially lucrative market, out of, from what I can gather, fetishism for the Anglosphere. Doesn't make a single bit of sense if you ask me. I don't see the payoff. The idea of "striking our own trade deals" is superficially appealing, I can understand that, and it's a nice enough slogan, but it doesn't hold under scrutiny when you consider geopolitical and market realities.

Imploding Turtle wrote:UK standards will be lower. They will have to be, because that's how weaker markets attract trade. And our market will definitely be weaker than the EU's market. It's a fairly basic principle of capitalism.

Weaker markets don’t have to dilute but diversify to stimulate trade, that’s the trick you are missing. The quality will be similar but a greater range.

How does a poultry farmer diversify? Learn code and develop a dating app for galline enthusiasts?

Spiral wrote:How does a poultry farmer diversify? Learn code and develop a dating app for galline enthusiasts?

Investment trial & error. Some will go bust, some will make a fortune, start off small do some research into your market & grow, research very imperative otherwise you could sitting on stock not shifting, asset rich but cash poor, night.

Spiral wrote:Take these axioms:

- Where two trade blocs have differing standards across any given sector, regulatory alignment of a 3rd party with one bloc comes at the expense of distancing from the standards of the other across the same sector

- Concurrent productions lines incurs greater costs

- Increasing or decreasing product standards raises or lowers production costs respectively

- Exceeding regulatory standards can make products uncompetitive

- Product standards are typically for the benefit of the consumer or the environment

- The UK accommodating the Anglosphere and southern hemisphere at the expense of Europe defies geographic logic

- The US will negotiate in the interest of US companies

It's not inconceivable to see how US companies striving for UK market access, commercially incapable of running concurrent production lines to meet differing US and UK standards, might lobby for the US to pressure the UK to adopt lower import standards in alignment with the US. It's also not inconceivable to see how the Tory government, playing to the gallery of its supporters adamant on a bite of Anglosphere and imperial nostalgia, and acting on it's own low-regulation, free-market impulses best exemplified in the US, through material or political necessity - or even desperation - might acquiesce to US standards, should a disorderly Brexit put strain on the UK economy. Lowering of standards would require UK companies to meet the new, lower standards of the cheaper imports lest they become uncompetitive against cheaper made imports. Therefore, through economic forces, domestic UK producers resolve to produce in accordance with the lower US standards. Smaller UK companies either sell exclusively to the US/UK, or invest in concurrent production lines to meet EU standards. This benefits larger oligopolies with the resources to do so, driving out competition. The choice to pay for more expensive goods made to higher standards is a luxury not afforded to everyone, and this fact will inform the demand for higher value goods.

We'd be adopting junk, and doing so at the expense of our geographically closest and most commercially lucrative market, out of, from what I can gather, fetishism for the Anglosphere. Doesn't make a single bit of sense if you ask me. I don't see the payoff. The idea of "striking our own trade deals" is superficially appealing, I can understand that, and it's a nice enough slogan, but it doesn't hold under scrutiny when you consider geopolitical and market realities.

Are you saying that with the USA and the UK having different standards, and the UK being the weaker market, then it will no longer be possible to export £100 billion per year to the US while importing only £66 billion? That when we are in the same regulatory market, we will necessarily run a balance of trade deficit because they're bigger than us, just as we run a huge balance of trade deficit with the EU?

I thought we were trading rather well with the USA, even with the WTO rules. If the result of a trade deal would be as bad as you say, then perhaps we'd be better off continuing under WTO.

Well it's not like you to put words in peoples' mouths, but I digress. At no point was I, nor anyone else tonight for that matter, talking about commercial balance. The point being made was about sector-by-sector product standards. But for what it's worth, balance of trade needs to be understood in the context of the UK being an extant member of the EU, something that will, by definition, be null when (if) we leave. EU membership makes the UK commercially lucrative as an access point, in spite of the lack of a comprehensive FTA between the EU and the US.

dsr wrote: I thought we were trading rather well with the USA, even with the WTO rules. If the result of a trade deal would be as bad as you say, then perhaps we'd be better off continuing under WTO.

You finally get it!

Imploding Turtle wrote:It was a joke, you know, like Brexit.

I am sure you can forgive me for not expecting you to have a go at humour

dsr wrote:This is a fairly common misconception. For years, it has been accepted that all over Europe we have (in most respects) the same standards. Whatever we produce and sell in this country must meet the standards of all the countries in the single market.

This is an exception, not the norm. Virtually all trade agreements are much looser than this. So any suggestion that we can tell the USA that they must clean up their act and must have zero tolerance of foreign bodies in their own domestically-produced and consumed food, will not work and will not be considered; nor of course will the opposite. The law for selling goods in the UK will remain at zero tolerance, wherever produced; and perhaps the USA will let us export our not-suitable-for-sale-in-the-UK rejects to them. Who knows. But standards at domestic level will not be affected.

Hate to do this dsr, but you need to back up that last line with evidence.

I know we should all trust you by now, but you've got a little bit of previous when it comes to making sweeping statements that are false.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Hate to do this dsr, but you need to back up that last line with evidence.

I know we should all trust you by now, but you've got a little bit of previous when it comes to making sweeping statements that are false.

Evidence? How can I provide evidence that something which has never happened before will not happen in the future?

dsr wrote:Evidence? How can I provide evidence that something which has never happened before will not happen in the future?

Ah, so you know it won't happen?

Great, then there must be some evidence for you being so sure?

I mean, its not....it can't be....but are you making sweeping statements with no way of backing them up?

Say it ain't so dsr, say it ain't so!

Lancasterclaret wrote:Ah, so you know it won't happen?

Great, then there must be some evidence for you being so sure?

I mean, its not....it can't be....but are you making sweeping statements with no way of backing them up?

Say it ain't so dsr, say it ain't so!

I suspect it’s ‘common sense’.

Look, its perfectly possible for us to sign a comprehensive FTA protecting our domestic food standards and the NHS in less than a year.

And President Trump is known worldwide for his willingness to cede whatever we want because he's such a reasonable chap, and everyone knows they need us more than we need them right?

(The last 24 hours have proved yet again that the Tories don't think long term, they are already confidenty predicting that we won't need an extension at the end of 2020, while ignoring all the experts who are telling them that we will.)

Dsr wants to believe that this time, they are telling the truth

I don't believe them, because they haven't told the truth yet on this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-50160148" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BBC did a thing on that info that Ringo (and many, many, many others) believed

Lancasterclaret wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-50160148

BBC did a thing on that info that Ringo (and many, many, many others) believed

Good that someone has done some proper research into this, but for anyone with half a brain all it needed not to believe the stories was an internet connection and about a minutes free time.

Lancasterclaret wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-50160148

BBC did a thing on that info that Ringo (and many, many, many others) believed

The fact that none of the stories actually contained snippets of the accounts, etc was a complete giveaway that it was made up.

Obviously the bigger issue is how many people actually believe the things they read on these websites and continue to believe them. There's multiple instances on here where someone is asked for proof and they link to UnityNews, Breitbart, Guido, etc. It doesn't just happen once, people continue to go to these websites after they've been shown to lie repeatedly because they want the stories to be true.

Lancasterclaret wrote:... The last 24 hours have proved yet again that the Tories don't think long term, they are already confidenty predicting that we won't need an extension at the end of 2020, while ignoring all the experts who are telling them that we will. ...

Are these the same experts who told them they they couldn't get a deal agreed with the EU before October 31st? Or a different set of experts?

Very good speech by Boris Johnson today launching the Conservative campaign.

Blackrod wrote:Very good speech by Boris Johnson today launching the Conservative campaign.

Really? Only if all you wanted to hear about is how bad things will be under Corbyn.

dsr wrote:Are these the same experts who told them they they couldn't get a deal agreed with the EU before October 31st? Or a different set of experts?

Ones you should really listen to, rather than those who say stuff like "we've just got to believe more" and "its all remoaners fault"

Blackrod wrote:Very good speech by Boris Johnson today launching the Conservative campaign.

Full of lies and half truths, so standard Boris fare.

Not a complete shock to see it going down well with you though!

dsr wrote:Are these the same experts who told them they they couldn't get a deal agreed with the EU before October 31st? Or a different set of experts?

More specifically they said they couldn’t get a deal agreed with the EU that would be agreed from by the HoC. They were right.

I mean, he's ready to "chew his own tie"?

Guys an imbecile.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Ones you should really listen to, rather than those who say stuff like "we've just got to believe more" and "its all remoaners fault"

I've been listening to experts since the Brexit vote was announced. How many predictions do they have to get wrong before I decide they aren't as expert as they think they are?