Struner
Member
let alone their own party?Well-established, well-run businesses with their trading relationships built up carefully over decades don't expect to be shafted by their own government.
let alone their own party?Well-established, well-run businesses with their trading relationships built up carefully over decades don't expect to be shafted by their own government.
Tell me, what do Mr Browning's travails at Schipol airport have to do with Brexit and why has it been mentioned in this thread? Passengers from the UK have always had to pass through the formalities at Schipol, as they do when arriving at any other European destination. Brexit hasn't changed that.
I think the headline below the link explains that:Tell me, what do Mr Browning's travails at Schipol airport have to do with Brexit and why has it been mentioned in this thread? Passengers from the UK have always had to pass through the formalities at Schipol, as they do when arriving at any other European destination. Brexit hasn't changed that.
So what did he vote for? Was he expecting to wave his blue passport, claim "Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State Requests and Requires" and expect a path to be cleared through the seething hordes of other nationalities?Brexiteer complains he has to wait in queue at EU airport: ‘This isn’t the Brexit I voted for’
Colin Browning describes himself as one of the 17.4 million people who voted for Brexit said this: "Absolutely disgusting service at Schiphol airport. 55 minutes we have been stood in the immigration queue. This isn’t the Brexit I voted for."Tell me, what do Mr Browning's travails at Schipol airport have to do with Brexit and why has it been mentioned in this thread? Passengers from the UK have always had to pass through the formalities at Schipol, as they do when arriving at any other European destination. Brexit hasn't changed that.
The Brexit he voted for probably involved not being in Amsterdam at all.Colin Browning describes himself as one of the 17.4 million people who voted for Brexit said this: "Absolutely disgusting service at Schiphol airport. 55 minutes we have been stood in the immigration queue. This isn’t the Brexit I voted for."
A person who voted for Brexit blaming Brexit when something went wrong. Where else should it go?
But he didn't bring it to this thread. Somebody must have introduced it on here. That's what intrigues me. This thread is about the UK's future relationship with the EU. Nothing has currently changed, especially border controls at Schipol airport for arrivals from the UK.Why don't you ask Mr Browning yourself? He's the one that originally mentioned Brexit in his tweet.
Why do you suppose it will be worse? I've landed at Schipol a number of times. In common with most mainland European airports there are two entry procedures: one for those arriving from Schengen countries and one for those arriving from everywhere else. UK passport holders are subject to the latter. Are you suggesting there might in future be three options: Schengen; everywhere else (except the UK); and the UK (which will be more stringent and/or awkward than everywhere else)?Best case it will be just the same after Brexit. More likely it will be worse.
True. But you can't eat silicon chips.High value electronics from Japan can be in the EU in hours.
No, but when at passport checks for non Schengen, they still just take our passports and quickly look over them, scan them then let us in. For other nations, they are susceptible to being fingerprinted, stamped and the visas meticulously read.Why do you suppose it will be worse? I've landed at Schipol a number of times. In common with most mainland European airports there are two entry procedures: one for those arriving from Schengen countries and one for those arriving from everywhere else. UK passport holders are subject to the latter. Are you suggesting there might in future be three options: Schengen; everywhere else (except the UK); and the UK (which will be more stringent and/or awkward than everywhere else)?
For other nations, they are susceptible to being fingerprinted, stamped and the visas meticulously read.
Why do you suppose it will be worse? I've landed at Schipol a number of times. In common with most mainland European airports there are two entry procedures: one for those arriving from Schengen countries and one for those arriving from everywhere else. UK passport holders are subject to the latter. Are you suggesting there might in future be three options: Schengen; everywhere else (except the UK); and the UK (which will be more stringent and/or awkward than everywhere else)?
No, but when at passport checks for non Schengen, they still just take our passports and quickly look over them, scan them then let us in. For other nations, they are susceptible to being fingerprinted, stamped and the visas meticulously read.
There is talk of the EU implementing a visa-waiver system similar to the USA and of the possibility of UK citizens having to go through that process. While not on the scale of the controls applied to some countries, that is still more restrictive than what we have given up. There will be extra hassle to apply in advance, and when passing through airports the non-EU queue is likely to be slower. Like many things needed to get Brexit done, we just don't know what will happen ten months time.And you suspect that will be the case with UK passport holders from next January? I don't share your pessimism because it is vanishingly unlikely that they will be required to hold visas in order to visit the Schengen area. There are well over 60 countries with no such requirement for tourist and leisure purposes. These include most of South and Central America, Japan, South Korea, many countries in the Far East and the Pacific. Do you think the UK will be treated differently to those nations? If so, that lumps them in with those visitors from places such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq the DR Congo, Mongolia, Sudan and Syria. Why is there such inbuilt, seemingly intractable pessimism about life post-Brexit? Do you seriously believe that the EU will jeopardise its very valuable tourist trade with the UK by making such demands (with the concomitant risk that the UK will do likewise) especially when it makes no such demands of other (what it quaintly describes as) "Third Countries"?
There is talk of the EU implementing a visa-waiver system similar to the USA and of the possibility of UK citizens having to go through that process. While not on the scale of the controls applied to some countries, that is still more restrictive than what we have given up. There will be extra hassle to apply in advance, and when passing through airports the non-EU queue is likely to be slower. Like many things needed to get Brexit done, we just don't know what will happen ten months time.
Yes! Wouldn't it be great to be on the same side when a virus strikes or a recession is brewing?I hope that we keep a good relationship with Europe, especially if dealing with a possibly awful pandemic.
In the first, it is likely in the interest of all countries to be on the same side in pandemic EU or not, but in the latter example, the EU's interests may well be at the detriment of the UK's interests.Yes! Wouldn't it be great to be on the same side when a virus strikes or a recession is brewing?
And you suspect that will be the case with UK passport holders from next January? I don't share your pessimism because it is vanishingly unlikely that they will be required to hold visas in order to visit the Schengen area. There are well over 60 countries with no such requirement for tourist and leisure purposes. These include most of South and Central America, Japan, South Korea, many countries in the Far East and the Pacific. Do you think the UK will be treated differently to those nations? If so, that lumps them in with those visitors from places such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq the DR Congo, Mongolia, Sudan and Syria. Why is there such inbuilt, seemingly intractable pessimism about life post-Brexit? Do you seriously believe that the EU will jeopardise its very valuable tourist trade with the UK by making such demands (with the concomitant risk that the UK will do likewise) especially when it makes no such demands of other (what it quaintly describes as) "Third Countries"?
There is currently the latest wave of illegal migrants massing on the Greek/Turkish border. The EU has enough on its plate trying to handle that crisis (which is a crisis for the entire Schengen Area). Do you think it is going to devote its resources to insisting that UK passport holders apply for a visa to spend a fortnight in Benidorm?
Project fear at it's finest.
The idea of Project Fear is once again to pitch several catchphrases, short, sharp and memorable against far less attractive detailed and rational arguments (i.e £350 million a WEEK for the NHS! against there will an X% drop in GDP, equating to, over the next 15 years £x lost in tax income, leading to a government deficit and increased borrowing.) The fact that I don't remember the exact sums for the second even as a remainer goes to show how much more publicity-friendly the former is, even if the latter is more accurate.Project Fear was a construct of the Leave campaign, specifically to try to disguise anything negative about Brexit been passed off as pessimism from the opposition. So in a daft kind of way you are right, this is Project Fear in play, the leavers managed to keep this out of the minds of their supporters until the reality sets in. From next year Colin, the irate Amsterdam passenger is going to be even more irate, and not just about queues at Schiphol.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...B1FrmBN_p6YYAOUKFlg0P7kkiitdImCmofY18wrmXl-QAOne of the most senior government advisers has said the UK does not need its farming or fishing industries, according to reports.
In comments seen by the Mail on Sunday, Dr Tim Leunig is understood to have said the food sector was “not critically important” to the country’s economy – and that agriculture and fisheries “certainly isn’t”.
Simple. If chlorinated chicken bothers you, simply buy chicken that isn't chlorinated. Some people may not be bothered. All a matter of choice really.
It isn't that simple though.Simple. If chlorinated chicken bothers you, simply buy chicken that isn't chlorinated. Some people may not be bothered. All a matter of choice really.
Simple. If chlorinated chicken bothers you, simply buy chicken that isn't chlorinated. Some people may not be bothered. All a matter of choice really.
I can choose not to buy something a] if I know that the thing doesn't match my criteria and b] if there are practical alternatives. There will always be luxury haut de gamme meat that is organic and free range, but what about for the average person?Simple. If chlorinated chicken bothers you, simply buy chicken that isn't chlorinated. Some people may not be bothered. All a matter of choice really.
I just said more and brought in other stuff.An oversimplification, I am afraid. As I am sure must have been explained in this thread before, chlorinating chicken is associated with lower standards of care and hygiene for chicken farmers which results in them being able to produce the meat more cheaply. Our chicken producers may be unable to compete unless they are allowed to lower standards too. So it is a matter of choice, but not just at the point of purchase. It depends on whether we want to maintain current standards of animal care and hygiene, or not. That's a decision for us nationally, not as individuals.
(@FelixtheCat has explained it better than me and obviously types faster!)
Given that 50% of the raw chicken already sold in the UK has food poisoning bacteria on it, I don't think we are in any position to critise US methods.It isn't that simple though.
Firstly, the chlorine is not really the problem. The problem is that the chlorine has to be used because the way that slaughtering animals is done in the US, Australia etc. is so unclean that it has to be disinfected. Also, chlorine washing a chicken post-grotty slaughtering is far less effective than slaughtering the animal in a hygenic way.
Do you know what the figure for the US is (I don't - genuine question)?Given that 50% of the raw chicken already sold in the UK has food poisoning bacteria on it, I don't think we are in any position to critise US methods.