And if it hadn't been for excessive austerity in the Cameron/Osborne years it's likely fewer people would have been unhappy enough with their government to vote for Brexit in the first place.
Could he "stand down" for a temporary period - ie. if there WAS a government of National
He wouldn't technically need to stand down: it's well within his remit to say he and the Labour Party (or those that obey) will support person X as the head of a replacement government, for a certain period of time.
Not quite. A lobbyist for US farmers has made that staement, the equivalent of the leader of our NFU stating that we will not accept US standards. Neither has the power or authority to enforce what they say.
Maybe as a lifelong Eurosceptic, that is what Corbyn wants
I don't know. As an ardent remainer myself I'd prefer a few months of Corbyn if it included a referendum based on factual campaigning including Labour coming out for remain. The few Labour Brexiters could perhaps have carte blanche to diseent, as long as they base their arguments on facts about what is best for Britain (for which I can see precious few on the Leave side of the argument) not about electoral benefit for Labour.
Or even the NHS, railways, schools....
It would not. There are a lot of things allowed in US goods that we do not - and for good reason. Examples include high fructose corn syrup, high levels of benzene and trans fats. You might see accepting inferior food as a plus but I definitely do not.
Chlorinated chicken? No, thank you.Which government would that be? I must have missed it.
Nothing wrong with that (though details are lacking). It would be perfectly reasonable for our food exports to the US to comply. As indeed it would be reasonable in reverse. I doubt we'll have rulings handed down from the US Supreme Court influencing our affairs; nor do I expect we'll be forced to allow US citizens to live and work here; nor do I expect the US will prohibit us from agreeing trade agreements with any other nation; nor do I expect we will have to pay £10bn a year for access to their market; nor do I expect the US will determine how many hours per week our employees can work; nor do I think they will attempt to determine what hour we set our clocks to (I could go on but I'm sure you get the gist). Other than that it will be just the same as our current relationship with the EU.
This is a funny one. Chlorinated meat, in and unto itself, doesn't present a health risk. You get similar levels of chlorine in drinking water.
And the UK has about the longest hours and the lowest productivity in Europe. Is that a good thing?
Indeed it is.
Unfortunately, in far too many cases, as a result of tragedy. And in other cases due to prodding by external forces (e.g. the EU). It's sad but true that business rarely improves the lot of the employee for purely altruistic reasons.
Nothing wrong with that (though details are lacking). It would be perfectly reasonable for our food exports to the US to comply. As indeed it would be reasonable in reverse. I doubt we'll have rulings handed down from the US Supreme Court influencing our affairs; nor do I expect we'll be forced to allow US citizens to live and work here; nor do I expect the US will prohibit us from agreeing trade agreements with any other nation; nor do I expect we will have to pay £10bn a year for access to their market; nor do I expect the US will determine how many hours per week our employees can work; nor do I think they will attempt to determine what hour we set our clocks to (I could go on but I'm sure you get the gist). Other than that it will be just the same as our current relationship with the EU.
This is true but misses the systemic problem with how that process works, starting with the selection of commissioners. The end result is that the UK (and everyone else in the EU) is told what to do by a bunch of people fundamentally opposed to democracy - "Technocrats" - and who are completely convinced of their own right to decide things as well as their own infallibility. Even if it means killing people to support their views (statistically killing them, of course - just letting some pensioners and sick people die, and maybe raising the suicide rate among young people. You know - non-specific and very much non-culpable deaths of poor people).
