REVUpminster
Member
We don't have to buy American chicken. We have banned Foie gras, even if the Geese and Ducks are fattened to EU standards.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Brexit matters
- Thread starter Xenophon PCDGS
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Or two safe seats might become a competitive constituency. But two MPs is a very small district, here in Sweden the smallest mainland district elects 4 MPs (Gotland elects 2 MPs, but it's hard to merge it with another district for geographical reasons), the largest elects 39 MPs.
It wouldn't, but it would be a lot better than today. And there are ways to correct that. All the districts in Sweden elect a total of 310 MPs, then there are 39 leveling seats that gets distributed according to a mathematical model to make sure that the elected MPs are as proportional as possible to the nationwide vote.
I have to admit that I've never been able to understand the importance of a local link to an MP. But considering the size of the UK and the fact that it has a huge parliament, there will still be a pretty local link. Apart from the Scottish highland and islands, you can still have pretty small districts.
Many would consider that a feature and not a bug.
Annetts key
Established Member
We've had national parliamentary elections in the past where the party with the most MPs did not have enough MPs to form a majority government, hence there has been a coalition.
And coalition administrations happen all the time in local government.
Production in the UK has been banned, it can still be imported. Easy enough to find for sale if so inclined.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
It's a bit different with the chicken. We can still buy food from America, but only if it complies with the applicable standards which remain aligned with the EU. Chlorinated chicken certainly doesn't.
A controversial twelve-year access deal for fishery , controversial and why ? Starmer was elected for five years not twelve
What's your point? Governments often enter into agreements which will outlast them.
And the deal prior to that was nearly six years, again longer than a term in office. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
It is not a mountain out of a molehill, the EU has so mismanaged fishing policies, over-fishing the seas and oceans under the EU remit, major depletion of important species, the EU needs a "white knight", that White Knight being UK fishing territories
I'm not going to be losing sleep over fishing rights considering it's such a small portion of our economy...
Particularly when there are much more important sectors that would benefit from their own bespoke deals with the EU and would do far more to help many more Brits than "taking back control of our fishing grounds" or whatever.
Particularly when there are much more important sectors that would benefit from their own bespoke deals with the EU and would do far more to help many more Brits than "taking back control of our fishing grounds" or whatever.
TravelDream
Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2016
- Messages
- 866
It was the Johnson deal which lasted Johnson, Truss, Sunak and Starmer.
It remains the Johnson deal, just extended.
It's perfectly normal for treaties/ laws to long outlive the governments which implemented them.
Britain still abides by the Treaty of Windsor (1386) which created an alliance between England and Portugal.
It didn't cease to exist when King Richard II (King of England 1377 - 1399) was deposed from the throne. It has lasted for every prime minister from the first to the current.
class ep-09
Member
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 593
EU fishing policies were introduced to limit overfishing … which UK’s fishermen liked doing very much.
Hence quotas and tight regulations.
0.02% of the economy but retains an oddly disproportionate place in our political culture because it involves control of the sea. The idea that governments can’t make any decisions which have implications beyond their term is a bit bizarre!
My point the twelve year term is anti-democratic, from where is the sacred number of twelve years derived? Which side of the parties in the negotiations? I suspect the period of twelve years is chosen to spike the political guns and handcuff the next UK Government should they be anti-EU (which I suspect will be a political party beginning with the letter R)
Last edited:
By that reasoning surely any decision any Government makes which cannot be easily undone after it's term of office is anti-democratic? Including for instance Brexit itself!
You seem to be assuming that the UK negotiators chose the duration of the agreement in a vacuum. It is a small part of a much larger deal that we are assured will bring an overall benefit to the UK economy. The right wing press is trying to amplify the fishing part of it by stirring up island mentality insecurity of their readership.
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 9,131
If we took that view on everything we would soon find ourselves a third world country. You cannot plan or act in five year terms it does not work.
I'm sorry but long term planning is undemocratic so cannot be done! Ruin is the only democratic choice.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I guess a future government or parliament might choose to repudiate the agreement, but at a huge cost to international relations. Political short-termism and lack of continuity has caused great damage to the UK domestically, not least in rail policy.
Any incoming Government is allowed to renegotiate existing deals to their hearts content. If they want to change the length or terms of a deal that's already in place, all they need to do is ring up the other end and go "look, this isn't working, we need to talk". Just look at how many deals Trump has thrown in the bin in less than six months.
What making deals which outlive Parliament means is that on day one of a new Government they don't have to start from scratch, and do it quickly so the country can get back to working. If every international agreement - covering everything from passport acceptance to electrical distribution, from food standards to border recognition - had to be renegotiated every time we had a general election, the country would literally collapse and be sent back to pre-medieval times. Even North Korea would have more international agreements in place than we would.
TravelDream
Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2016
- Messages
- 866
This is an incredible take to be honest.
The country would never have developed and we'd still be under a agrarian feudal system if this were the case.
Long term planning is essential for any state. There are many great examples out there, but Singapore is one modern example. A resourceless backwater racked by racial riots with relatively little going for it when they got thrown out of the Malay Federation not long after getting independence from Britain. Long term vision turned them into a far wealthier place than their former colonial master.
And on the last point, a week is a long time in politics and we are four years away from that election.
There are a whole myriad of things that could happen in that time. And I wouldn't rule out any of the three biggest parties, or indeed none of them, winning the next GE or indeed a coalition government.
Quite. At the moment, possibly only the Lib dems are without any major threats. Labour has to win back support, Reform has to avoid being a shotshow in local authorities and the Tories have to survive.
TravelDream
Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2016
- Messages
- 866
It's one of those weird things that people seem to think Reform is a dead certainty.
Just 12 months ago Labour won a massive majority. Four years is a lot longer.
The Tories could see a resurgence - though it's unlikely under the current leader in my opinion.
The Lib Dems are now very fortunate we have FPTP (first past the post) as their vote has become very concentrated in certain areas and they could easily add similar seats on current polling numbers.
FPTP is really designed for a two party system. How it works with multiple major parties is very challenging to project.
Though I have to say, I find the thought of a Reform win to be quite worrying in terms of Britain's international standing as they are likely to go Trump-ish simply reneging on deals Britain had signed up for and was committed to.
I hope this agreement has some teeth with significant penalties for each side to reduce the risk of this.
Sorry, please look at the situation from the other end of your telescope, the EU has messed up fishery sustainability, dismiss thoughts of quotas and tight regulation, the experts report the Med is extremely over-fished, reports write the EU experts give Brussels an annual quota for the allowable sustainable catch of the waters, a figure which is ignored by the bureaucrats who then permit exceedance of quotas and promote over-fishing.
If UK waters are overfished and the Eu waters not, then for what reason do the EU make such a big issue over access to our fishing grounds?