Britain’s relationship with the EU post Brexit.

Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Enthusiast

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2019
Messages
417

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
1,838
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.
Why don't you ask Mr Browning yourself? He's the one that originally mentioned Brexit in his tweet.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
18,507
Location
Nottingham
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:
Brexiteer complains he has to wait in queue at EU airport: ‘This isn’t the Brexit I voted for’
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?

Best case it will be just the same after Brexit. More likely it will be worse.
 

FelixtheCat

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,572
Location
Edinburgh, London, or somewhere else
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.
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?
 

Peter Kelford

Member
Joined
29 Nov 2017
Messages
797
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?
The Brexit he voted for probably involved not being in Amsterdam at all.
 

Enthusiast

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2019
Messages
417
Why don't you ask Mr Browning yourself? He's the one that originally mentioned Brexit in his tweet.
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.

Best case it will be just the same after Brexit. More likely it will be worse.
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)?
 

Peter Kelford

Member
Joined
29 Nov 2017
Messages
797
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.
 

Enthusiast

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2019
Messages
417
For other nations, they are susceptible to being fingerprinted, stamped and the visas meticulously read.
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?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
18,507
Location
Nottingham
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.
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.
 

JamesT

Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
589
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.
The current position is that the UK will join Annex II along with countries like the US. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019R0592 . This allows for visa free travel in the EU for short stays etc. If the UK brings in a visa requirement for EU nationals visiting the UK, the EU will reciprocate.

Entirely separate to Brexit is the ETIAS scheme for electronic authorisation of visa waivers for said Annex II countries. If the EU bring it in, then as it stands we’ll be covered by that as we’ll be an Annex II country, but until then your wouldn’t need to apply in advance if your travel is covered by the visa waiver.
 

spellbound330

Member
Joined
1 Mar 2020
Messages
6
Location
EN
I hope that we keep a good relationship with Europe, especially if dealing with a possibly awful pandemic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Peter Kelford

Member
Joined
29 Nov 2017
Messages
797
Yes! Wouldn't it be great to be on the same side when a virus strikes or a recession is brewing?
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.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
4,742
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
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?
From next January all non-EU passengers arriving in the Schengen Area will require an ETIAS visa waver if travelling from a country where they do not specifically need a visa, and as part of the process there may be similar requirements to the US ETSA system, i.e. fingerprint scans & photographs taken to add to the ETIAS database on arrival. If you've ever travelled to the US under ETSA, you'll know that long queues at Homeland Security are the norm. Not a massive inconvenience, but it will potentially mean longer delays at airports for a lot of people. As the video up link quite clearly says, people were promised improvements, and this one small example of the opposite. I'm sure in the years to come many more will become visible.

Project fear at it's finest.
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.
 

Peter Kelford

Member
Joined
29 Nov 2017
Messages
797
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.
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.
 

nidave

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2011
Messages
912
Wasn't one of the big reasons for leaving the EU was to get fishing sorted - despite it being less than 0.01% of the UK Economy?? Looks like the UK government is planning on killing the farming and fishing industry just to get a US trade deal with all that bleach washed chicken (which is something Australia has asked to allow into the UK as well)
One 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”.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...B1FrmBN_p6YYAOUKFlg0P7kkiitdImCmofY18wrmXl-QA
 

arbeia

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2019
Messages
79
Location
South Shields
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.
 

FelixtheCat

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,572
Location
Edinburgh, London, or somewhere else
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.

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.

Secondly, the UK currently does not allow farmers here to produce food of such low quality. So, if we were to import produce from the US, UK farmers would not be able to compete in the cheaper end of the market, something which they currently can do. "To sign up to a trade deal which results in opening our ports, shelves and fridges to food which would be illegal to produce here would not only be morally bankrupt, it would be the work of the insane" (Minette Batters, President, National Farmers Union).

It is also not as simple as just lowering standards to allow UK farmers to do so, because said farmers would have to adapt to the new way. This takes time and, because of the proliference of cheap US produce, would mean most farming would go under. Some farmers would remain to produce high-quality corn-fed free-range birds to produce food for the metropolitan liberal elite, and Jacob Rees-Mogg et al, who, although he has no problem letting US chlorinated chicken in to the UK, would never buy it for his family.

This is exactly what Patrick Minford, the only economist that produced a report that showed leaving the EU would be better for the UK economy, predicted. His report said that leaving would "mostly eliminate the manufacturing and agriculture sectors in the UK".

We know that Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, and other prominent leave campaigners have constantly promised that standards would not be lowered. This is in keeping with the general reason to vote leave (IE: to make the country better). Chlorinated chicken does the exact opposite. It means that our standards would be lowered, and that we would be more likely to get food poisoning.

To summarise:
  • Chlorinated chicken is less safe, and would require a significant lowering of standards by the UK
  • Leave campaigners have promised that standards won't be lowered
  • The National Farmers Union (remain) and Patrick Minford (leave) both provide evidence that this type of Brexit will "mostly eliminate UK agriculture"


Finally, on a more normative point, safety standards are there to protect the population from less safe things. There should not be a regression on these standards, and I would not support it. I also don't believe that most of the people who claim to support it would do so were it not for the frame of Brexit.
 

DerekC

Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
1,134
Location
Hampshire
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.
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!)
 

Peter Kelford

Member
Joined
29 Nov 2017
Messages
797
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?
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
1,178
and of course if we end up having to lower our food standards to compete with cheap chicken coming from America then we can forget exporting food products to the EU.

Plus I wonder what will happen with protected geographic origin and similar on food products (Cornish Pasties for an example) as that is an EU protection.
 

FelixtheCat

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,572
Location
Edinburgh, London, or somewhere else
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!)
I just said more and brought in other stuff.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
3,770
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.
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.
 

FelixtheCat

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,572
Location
Edinburgh, London, or somewhere else
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.
Do you know what the figure for the US is (I don't - genuine question)?
Do you know what the difference is between the actual rate of food poisoning in the US and UK (quoted to be ~10 times as many cases in the US than the UK, adjusted for population; this could be wrong, so if you have a more authoritative source I'm willing to be corrected)?

But, you haven't questioned the substantive point, which is that the standards will get worse. So, that 50% figure (I'm not sure if it's correct, but it doesn't really matter either way) will get higher. Things will get worse. That is not what Brexit was supposed to be.
 

Top