RLFANS.COM
Celebrating
22 years service to
the Rugby League
Community!
WWW.RLFANS.COM • View topic - Brexit watch
::Off-topic discussion.
Re: Brexit watch Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:19 pm  
sally cinnamon User avatar
Gold RLFANS Member
Gold RLFANS Member

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:26 am
Posts: 15909
Member for 17 years
Sal Paradise wrote:
What is currently wrong with our current food standards - has the government suggested a lowering of these or is just more remain scaremongering?


What the government has suggested is including food standards in a trade deal with the US so that it would no longer be for an elected UK government to decide on food standards but we would instead be bound by the terms of the trade deal to accept US food standards. So any future UK government that wanted to protect UK consumers by prohibiting something that is legal in the US, would not be able to do so, because the US could bring a challenge that it was breaching the terms of the trade deal.

So it's handing over control of food standards to the US rather than the UK government.

Now you can say, well what's the difference inside the EU, surely we handed over control of food standards to them when we were inside the EU. Yes, and this is part of the compromise you make in a trade deal.

The difference is, the EU imposed minimum standards on food, and member states were free to go above them and have higher standards if they wish. A trade deal with the US will say that the UK market has to be open to US food exporters and therefore cannot introduce any food protections that are not in place in the US and would make US food therefore fall below the standard.

It also means that UK food exporters to the EU will face much more onerous and costly checks to prove the quality of their products when exporting to the EU, as the EU can no longer trust the standards of food in the UK. So it both means we have lower food standards in the UK and also harms the interests of UK food producers.
Challenge Cup winners 2009 2010 2012 2019
League Leaders 2011 2016
Re: Brexit watch Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:31 pm  

User avatarDurham Giant wrote:
Durham Giant User avatar
100% League Network
100% League Network

Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 8:25 pm
Posts: 12356
Location: Durham
Member for 14 years
Fact

Government is putting forward parliamentary bills which reduce environmental standards.

Eg on air pollution. Not setting a level waiting for further research for 2 years and also the government cannot be taken to court for breaching air safety levels.
Same will go for water quality and chemicals in water supplies ie rivers.

No race to the bottom and no reduction in environmental standards said Johnson a few weeks ago but he was lying.

No doubt Sal will tell us it is alright and we can trust Uncle Boris. Apparently everyone knew what they were voting for on Brexit.
Huddersfield Giants 2013 over achievers

Huddersfield Giants 2014 under achievers ??????????
Re: Brexit watch Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:59 pm  

User avatarSal Paradise wrote:
Sal Paradise User avatar
Gold RLFANS Member
Gold RLFANS Member

Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 8:28 am
Posts: 17985
Location: On the road
Member for 20 years
sally cinnamon wrote:
What the government has suggested is including food standards in a trade deal with the US so that it would no longer be for an elected UK government to decide on food standards but we would instead be bound by the terms of the trade deal to accept US food standards. So any future UK government that wanted to protect UK consumers by prohibiting something that is legal in the US, would not be able to do so, because the US could bring a challenge that it was breaching the terms of the trade deal.

So it's handing over control of food standards to the US rather than the UK government.

Now you can say, well what's the difference inside the EU, surely we handed over control of food standards to them when we were inside the EU. Yes, and this is part of the compromise you make in a trade deal.

The difference is, the EU imposed minimum standards on food, and member states were free to go above them and have higher standards if they wish. A trade deal with the US will say that the UK market has to be open to US food exporters and therefore cannot introduce any food protections that are not in place in the US and would make US food therefore fall below the standard.

It also means that UK food exporters to the EU will face much more onerous and costly checks to prove the quality of their products when exporting to the EU, as the EU can no longer trust the standards of food in the UK. So it both means we have lower food standards in the UK and also harms the interests of UK food producers.


There is a lot of speculation about our capitulation to the US - it seems to me that Boris allowing Hauwaei in the 5G against Trump's view is setting a marker. Next you will saying the UK has agreed to sell the NHS to the US Pharma - the government have said they want to do a trade deal with the US they have said everything is up for negotiation apart from the NHS - that is different from saying we going to allow the US food stuffs in at the current regulations allowed in the US.

Much will depend on the deal worked out with the EU - once that is in place the negotiations with the US may well follow a different tone?
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Re: Brexit watch Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:20 pm  
sally cinnamon User avatar
Gold RLFANS Member
Gold RLFANS Member

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:26 am
Posts: 15909
Member for 17 years
Sal Paradise wrote:
Next you will saying the UK has agreed to sell the NHS to the US Pharma


No but what I will be saying is that the US will pressure the UK to get rid of the NICE system which sets purchasing pricing, to ensure that the NHS pays (much) higher prices to pharma companies for drugs.

The US doesn't care that the UK NHS is publicly owned, their interest is in increasing the prices it pays to US pharma companies for drug purchases.

How should the additional costs be paid for? Through moving to a private insurance based model or through increasing taxation and pushing the burden onto the taxpayer?
Challenge Cup winners 2009 2010 2012 2019
League Leaders 2011 2016
Re: Brexit watch Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:51 pm  

User avatarSal Paradise wrote:
Sal Paradise User avatar
Gold RLFANS Member
Gold RLFANS Member

Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 8:28 am
Posts: 17985
Location: On the road
Member for 20 years
sally cinnamon wrote:
No but what I will be saying is that the US will pressure the UK to get rid of the NICE system which sets purchasing pricing, to ensure that the NHS pays (much) higher prices to pharma companies for drugs.

The US doesn't care that the UK NHS is publicly owned, their interest is in increasing the prices it pays to US pharma companies for drug purchases.

How should the additional costs be paid for? Through moving to a private insurance based model or through increasing taxation and pushing the burden onto the taxpayer?


A complete re-think and re-positioning of what we expect from the NHS. A significant reduction in waste and abuse. Perhaps when we tackled these two areas we can move forward. It could be that actually investment in the NHS is sufficient. Let's be realistic the waste in the NHS will be significant - and realistically can you see anyone negotiating accepting a huge increase in Pharma cost without a quid-proco somewhere else?

Again there appears to be an assumption that whatever the US the US will get - I think we are a long way off from that.
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Re: Brexit watch Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:54 pm  

User avatarSal Paradise wrote:
Sal Paradise User avatar
Gold RLFANS Member
Gold RLFANS Member

Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 8:28 am
Posts: 17985
Location: On the road
Member for 20 years
Durham Giant wrote:
Fact

Government is putting forward parliamentary bills which reduce environmental standards.

Eg on air pollution. Not setting a level waiting for further research for 2 years and also the government cannot be taken to court for breaching air safety levels.
Same will go for water quality and chemicals in water supplies ie rivers.

No race to the bottom and no reduction in environmental standards said Johnson a few weeks ago but he was lying.

No doubt Sal will tell us it is alright and we can trust Uncle Boris. Apparently everyone knew what they were voting for on Brexit.


How is not setting a level any different to now - its not a reduction is it no, its a status quo. Maybe we are not moving forward at the rate you would like but nowhere is there a case of lowering existing standards.
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Re: Brexit watch Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:15 pm  

IR80 wrote:
IR80 Free-scoring winger
Free-scoring winger

Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:59 am
Posts: 2215
Member for 2 years
There is so much misinformed opinion being passed as "fact" by remoaners, on this thread and in the wider media, trade negotiations haven't even started yet but the usual suspects are all wringing their hands and doing their best Chicken Licken impressions.
Re: Brexit watch Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:27 pm  

User avatarDurham Giant wrote:
Durham Giant User avatar
100% League Network
100% League Network

Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 8:25 pm
Posts: 12356
Location: Durham
Member for 14 years
Sal Paradise wrote:
How is not setting a level any different to now - its not a reduction is it no, its a status quo. Maybe we are not moving forward at the rate you would like but nowhere is there a case of lowering existing standards.



Because it means that the government is Not accepting the status quo as it exists they are saying that they will not be enforcing the current levels and not publishing the results of their tests therefore they cannot be taken to court. This means you can pollute away for the next two years pretty freely.
Huddersfield Giants 2013 over achievers

Huddersfield Giants 2014 under achievers ??????????
Re: Brexit watch Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:28 pm  

User avatarDurham Giant wrote:
Durham Giant User avatar
100% League Network
100% League Network

Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 8:25 pm
Posts: 12356
Location: Durham
Member for 14 years
IR80 wrote:
There is so much misinformed opinion being passed as "fact" by remoaners, on this thread and in the wider media, trade negotiations haven't even started yet but the usual suspects are all wringing their hands and doing their best Chicken Licken impressions.



None of the facts I have quoted relate to trade negotiations. Feel free to counter any facts with your evidence to the contrary.
Huddersfield Giants 2013 over achievers

Huddersfield Giants 2014 under achievers ??????????
Re: Brexit watch Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:02 pm  

IR80 wrote:
IR80 Free-scoring winger
Free-scoring winger

Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:59 am
Posts: 2215
Member for 2 years
Durham Giant wrote:
None of the facts I have quoted relate to trade negotiations. Feel free to counter any facts with your evidence to the contrary.

Where did I mention you?

but, come to mention it, where does this state what you suggest is happening?
PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 100% Wire, Scarlet Pimpernell, The Ghost of '99, wrencat1873 and 69 guests

Quick Reply



Subject:
Message:

   
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.

Return to The Sin Bin


When you register you get access to the live match scores, live match chat and you can post in the discussions on the forums.
YOU HAVE RL CHAT OFF
RLFANS Match Centre
Sun 10th Oct
WSL RND: 19 St.HelensW28-0LeedsW
WSL RND: 19 FeatherstoneW22-24Hudds W
CH RND: 25 Toulouse34-12Featherstone
L1 RND: 25 Workington36-12Doncaster
Sat 9th Oct
SL RND: 28 Catalans10-12St.Helens
This is an inplay table and positions can change as matches are in play.
National Rugby League 2021 ROUND : 25
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Melbourne 24 815 316 499 42
Penrith 24 640 280 360 42
Souths 24 775 453 322 40
Manly 24 744 492 252 32
Sydney 24 636 475 161 32
Parramatta 24 566 457 109 30
Newcastle 24 428 571 -143 24
Gold Coast 24 568 553 15 20
 
Cronulla 24 512 556 -44 20
Canberra 24 481 578 -97 20
St.George 24 474 616 -142 16
NZ Warriors 24 453 624 -171 16
Wests 24 500 714 -214 16
Brisbane 24 446 695 -249 14
NQL Cowboys 24 460 748 -288 14
Canterbury 24 340 710 -370 6
This is an inplay table and positions can change as matches are in play.
Betfred Super League XXVI ROUND : 25
 PLDFADIFFPTSDIFFWP%
Catalans 23 688 398 290 38 172.86 82.61
St.Helens 21 548 229 319 32 239.30 76.19
Warrington 21 588 354 234 31 166.10 73.81
Wigan 25 387 385 2 30 100.52 60
Leeds 24 556 440 116 26 126.36 54.17
Hull KR 20 497 458 39 20 108.52 50
 
Castleford 23 439 552 -113 22 79.53 47.83
Hull FC 21 409 476 -67 17 85.92 40.48
Huddersfield 24 460 516 -56 18 89.15 37.50
Wakefield 24 482 548 -66 18 87.96 37.50
Salford 22 402 586 -184 14 68.60 31.82
Leigh 22 356 870 -514 4 40.92 9.09
This is an inplay table and positions can change as matches are in play.
Betfred Championship 2021 ROUND : 20
 PLDFADIFFPTSDIFFWP%
Toulouse 13 616 112 504 26 550 100
Featherstone 19 817 254 563 34 321.65 94.74
Halifax 19 512 323 189 26 158.51 68.42
Bradford 18 483 455 28 24 106.15 66.67
LondonB 18 504 499 5 21 101 63.89
Batley 19 525 370 155 24 141.89 63.16
 
Whitehaven 20 447 496 -49 21 90.12 52.50
York 19 470 455 15 16 103.30 42.11
Widnes 19 458 509 -51 15 89.98 39.47
Newcastle 18 381 521 -140 13 73.13 36.11
Sheffield 18 382 553 -171 13 69.08 36.11
Dewsbury 19 308 570 -262 13 54.04 34.21
Oldham 19 270 691 -421 5 39.07 13.16
Swinton 20 354 719 -365 3 49.24 7.50
This is an inplay table and positions can change as matches are in play.
Betfred League One 2021 ROUND : 22
 PLDFADIFFPTSDIFFWP%
Barrow 17 596 275 321 27 216.73 79.41
Workington 15 471 310 161 21 151.94 70
Doncaster 18 503 400 103 24 125.75 66.67
Keighley 19 640 399 241 25 160.40 65.79
Crusaders 18 553 438 115 22 126.26 61.11
Hunslet 19 572 466 106 20 122.75 52.63
 
Rochdale 17 505 488 17 17 103.48 50
Coventry 17 407 460 -53 12 88.48 35.29
LondonS 18 292 577 -285 7 50.61 19.44
West Wales 18 208 896 -688 1 23.21 2.78
This is an inplay table and positions can change as matches are in play.
Betfred Womens Super League 2021 ROUND : 9
 PLDFADIFFPTSDIFFWP%
St.HelensW 7 370 36 334 12 1,027.78 85.71
WiganW 6 222 64 158 10 346.88 83.33
YorkW 6 186 102 84 8 182.35 66.67
CastlefordW 6 166 96 70 8 172.92 66.67
BradfordW 8 158 264 -106 6 59.85 37.50
Hudds W 7 104 288 -184 4 36.11 28.57
 
Wire W 8 150 334 -184 4 44.91 25
FeatherstoneW 8 122 338 -216 4 36.09 25
LeedsW 7 364 38 326 14 957.89 100
WakefieldW 7 50 332 -282 0 15.06 0
RLFANS Recent Posts


Visit the RLFANS.COM SHOP
for more merchandise!









X
::::::::