So out means remain

Article 101 does apply to MEP's...assuming it's not been altered from the EU's initial presentation.

 

Customs checks will stop pharmaceuticals?!? Some of the biggest most influential companies won’t be able to sell their wares? I think this is another of the silly scares again. After all, China really struggles with its imports...

 

You can argue all day on what’s what but the facts are before EU Europe was war ravaged after it wasn’t tgaas good enough for me .[/QUOTE]

It might be good enough for you Marlon but with great respect it's a shallow view of the facts....the undemocratic States that caused the wars were destroyed permanently by the countries that formed NATO and The Warsaw Pact...those two groups, despite being ideologically opposed preserved European peace...millions of their troops were stationed on both EU and non EU soil for 13 years before and 35 years after The Treaty of Rome started the EU project . To give credit to the EU for that is not valid...West Germany could not make a pea shooter unless it was for Nato use.

 

The heart of a US trade deal (which obviously we'll be keen to bend over backwards for, especially in the realms of a no deal scenario) is opening channels to their poor standard products that don't meet EU standards. And i'm not sure it would need to get through parliament. If I recall, part of the move to set all EU law as UK law had a henry the 8th clause that means the government can change much of the wording in those legislations without going back to parliament. It's a while back now so I can't recall fully if had amendments, but i'm pretty sure it got through without.

 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/draft_withdrawal_agreement_0.pdf

ARTICLE 101 Definitions 1. For the purposes of this Title, "members of the institutions" means, irrespective of their nationality, the President of the European Council, the members of the European Commission, the Judges, the Advocates-General, the Registrars and the Assistant Rapporteurs of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the members of the Court of Auditors, the members of the organs of the European Central Bank, the members of the organs of the European Investment Bank, as well as all other persons assimilated to any of those categories of persons under Union law for the purposes of Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union ("Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities"). The term "members of the institutions" does not include members of the European Parliament.

 

It might be good enough for you Marlon but with great respect it's a shallow view of the facts....the undemocratic States that caused the wars were destroyed permanently by the countries that formed NATO and The Warsaw Pact...those two groups, despite being ideologically opposed preserved European peace...millions of their troops were stationed on both EU and non EU soil for 13 years before and 35 years after The Treaty of Rome started the EU project . To give credit to the EU for that is not valid...West Germany could not make a pea shooter unless it was for Nato use.[/QUOTE]

i find it hard to believe how anyone thinks the european union is responsible for peace,as you say both the east and west militaries occupied various part of the eu and germany in particularly(for obvious fcukin reasons too) was watched like a hawk,as you point out their military capability was stripped from them,maybe that is why they now are trying their utmost to be the dominant force in europe,it has been in the DNA for decades.

during the run up to the referendum Farage was ridiculed by our politicians,particularly nick clegg ,for suggesting that the eu was after forming a eu wide army,there have now been discussions between Merkel and Macron on this very proposal,

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...iet-as-eu-army-plan-marches-forward-1-9447331

 

British and EU law prohibits 'ractopamine' in pork, 'Flexx' and other growth hormones in beef, chlorine washed chicken and dairy products from cows with milk infected with mastitis and other diseases. Countries like the US and 70% of the World do not have these regulations. We do not currently import beef, pork or chicken from US, Oz or NZ.

 

And when Trump says if you want a trade deal with the US you must relax your food hygiene laws, we say what?

 

and the government has already said food safety and standards will not be compromised..The threats of chlorinated chicken and hormone packed beef are nothing more than the latest in a long line of scare tactics to help the remain side should a second referendum happen
btw ,we import beef from both Australia and New Zealand and in australias case it currently sells us 120 million aussie dollars worth of the stuff,annually.we do not however allow them to import us beef that contains growth hormones

heres a list of countries that trades various meats with us and the Eu

https://www.imta-uk.org/import-export/importing/countries-approved-to-export-to-the-eu

 

its hypothetical again,and if he did it would have to get through parliament who i doubt would compromise food safety

 

There are two issues here. The first is locating a port in the UK with sufficient deep water clearance to dock the cargo ships from China - they require 20m clearance and the deepest UK port is 16m (Southampton IIRC). So all shipments from China come through deep water ports in the EU like Rotterdam (where customs checks are currently performed), which has the required deep water docking facilities. They then have to be loaded onto trucks to come to the UK.

Ok. All imports from the EU *now* attract a 0% tarriff. All imports from countries that have a FTA with the EU have lower (or zero) tariffs and those that don't have WTO tariffs. Collection of these tariffs currently raises cash for the UK government, which in turn pays for things - benefits, NHS, etc, etc. Different product categories have different rates of tariff.

If we leave under a no deal, we trade with the EU by WTO rules. Under the WTO rules, all imports have an associated tariff *or* we can collect zero tariffs, but then under the WTO "Most Favoured" rules, that tariff applies to all imports in that sector (from anywhere in the world). Tariffs protect business within a country from cheaper exports from places with lower standards, employment costs, etc. Zero tariffs will negatively affect the viability of any business in that sector Se we can either collect tariffs and protect UK-based business, or we can have zero tariffs and let the businesses fend for themselves. As the UK is a (relatively) affluent western country with (relatively) high wages, it can't compete with third world countries where people work for pence per day.

When a container enters a country, it has to be inspected to ensure that it is containing what the manifest *says* it is containing and ensure that the correct tariff is paid on it. Different pharmaceuticals attract different tariffs, therefore customs staff check each container to ensure:

1). The correct tariff is paid
2). It doesn't contain anything currently prohibited under law (drugs, weapons, chlorinated chicken, etc).

Each check takes time. Is it estimated that a 2 minute check on each lorry would produce a 20mile tailback on *both* sides of the Channel. Even if we just wave lorries through, France would still need to inspect the lorries going the other way leading to trucks stuck in the UK (or the EU would have to open its borders to zero tariff for all imports in that sector from around the world).

 

Delays in medicine coming through worries me. I know we will be able to get it through in the medium to long term, wherever we buy it from but short term scares me. My mam has type 1 diabetes and if she doesn’t get insulin she dies, simple as that. She has begun to stockpile slightly (3 months supply). Whilst I know people shouldn’t as it can add to the problem, I advised her to get a few months worth extra as her dying isn’t an option. Even if the insulin gets through customs quickly, it has to make it all the way to Barnsley. It might be extreme and scare mongering to consider it running out but the alternative is not worth the risk.

 

i find it hard to believe how anyone thinks the european union is responsible for peace,as you say both the east and west militaries occupied various part of the eu and germany in particularly(for obvious fcukin reasons too) was watched like a hawk,as you point out their military capability was stripped from them,maybe that is why they now are trying their utmost to be the dominant force in europe,it has been in the DNA for decades.

during the run up to the referendum Farage was ridiculed by our politicians,particularly nick clegg ,for suggesting that the eu was after forming a eu wide army,there have now been discussions between Merkel and Macron on this very proposal,

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...iet-as-eu-army-plan-marches-forward-1-9447331[/QUOTE]

Some may consider leaders of European countries regularly meeting, having summits, harmonising structures and having mobility of people and trade, is a wonderful way of understanding people of other nationalities, their issues, hopes and strengths and break down barriers.

Must make a wonderful change to this country who have the initial stance of treating people as risks, dangers and burdensome.

I think Farage is ridiculed for many reasons. Why is an army made up of European forces a bad thing? Just curious. You commonly see these statements which are inferred as negative. Just like migration. Benefits. A collaborative army seems to be viewed similarly.

 

ships need 15 mtr depth for chinese cargo ships and felixstowe already takes them,felixstowe is dredged to 16 metres

https://www.portoffelixstowe.co.uk/port/container-operations-berths-8-9/

felixstowe is also expanding,plans were announced in january of this year,maybe brexit has summat to do with it lol

https://www.portoffelixstowe.co.uk/press/news-archive/latest-expansion-begins-at-port-of-felixstowe/

you also incorrectly say that all chinese cargo ships have to go through eu deep water ports like rotterdam,this is simply not the case and the uk is quite able to handle chinese container freight with liverpool immingham and various other container ports all able to handle even the largest vessels

 

got to chuckle about tarrifs protecting countries from taking goods from countries with lower wages,this has done nothing whatsoever to protect many major industries within the eu,especially coal and steel who have seen their markets obliterated with production from countries where wages are a fraction of ours..the eu is awash with goods from the far east

 

Some may consider leaders of European countries regularly meeting, having summits, harmonising structures and having mobility of people and trade, is a wonderful way of understanding people of other nationalities, their issues, hopes and strengths and break down barriers.

Must make a wonderful change to this country who have the initial stance of treating people as risks, dangers and burdensome.

I think Farage is ridiculed for many reasons. Why is an army made up of European forces a bad thing? Just curious. You commonly see these statements which are inferred as negative. Just like migration. Benefits. A collaborative army seems to be viewed similarly.[/QUOTE]

farage has always stated that it was the intentions of the eu to created a united states of europe by taking power away from individual nations and creating projects such as a Eu army,the eu have always denied this and called him and one or two other liars and scaremongers,the latest talks between macron and merkel,urging the creation of this army is proof that he wasnt lying..this begs the question why was farage branded a liar and delusional,what have the eu really got in store for us

people who voted remain are probably happy with this and those that voted leave probably are not

 

farage has always stated that it was the intentions of the eu to created a united states of europe by taking power away from individual nations and creating projects such as a Eu army,the eu have always denied this and called him and one or two other liars and scaremongers,the latest talks between macron and merkel,urging the creation of this army is proof that he wasnt lying..this begs the question why was farage branded a liar and delusional,what have the eu really got in store for us

people who voted remain are probably happy with this and those that voted leave probably are not[/QUOTE]

What you haven’t said is why you wouldn’t want an EU army?

Fighting wars we’ve got nothing to do with on behalf of someone else? I don’t know

With the probable exception of the Falkland island where we operate alone we never go into any other war zone alone, we haven’t the will, money or manpower. We fight together with allies. Many of them from the EU.

 

farage has always stated that it was the intentions of the eu to created a united states of europe by taking power away from individual nations and creating projects such as a Eu army,the eu have always denied this and called him and one or two other liars and scaremongers,the latest talks between macron and merkel,urging the creation of this army is proof that he wasnt lying..this begs the question why was farage branded a liar and delusional,what have the eu really got in store for us

people who voted remain are probably happy with this and those that voted leave probably are not[/QUOTE]

80m turks…. I think liar is a very fair word.

As I said... whats the problem with an EU army? I'm curious to understand the inference its a bad thing.