I have mentioned a few times that one of the EUs first requirement when we joined was we had to destroy a number of orchards. I would think that was to protect the French fruit farmers.It struck me at the time how vindictive.

Quote Lilfatman="Lilfatman"I have mentioned a few times that one of the EUs first requirement when we joined was we had to destroy a number of orchards. I would think that was to protect the French fruit farmers.It struck me at the time how vindictive.'" I’ve done a quick search, and it sounds like incentives were put in place across all member countries to grub up orchards to avoid over production. Is that what you’re referring to? It doesn’t sound like a plan deserving of unquestioning support, and there may well have been negative consequences. But it wasn’t a requirement, it applied to/was available to all member countries (except where the UK uniquely adopted a different definition, according to the Guardian, see below), and doesn’t seem to have been in any way vindictive. https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/br ... -the-chop/ https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 32706.html https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... redspecies https://www.sustainweb.org/orchards/project_background/

Quote Lilfatman="Lilfatman"I have mentioned a few times that one of the EUs first requirement when we joined was we had to destroy a number of orchards. I would think that was to protect the French fruit farmers.It struck me at the time how vindictive.'" I’ve done a quick search, and it sounds like incentives were put in place across all member countries to grub up orchards to avoid over production. Is that what you’re referring to? It doesn’t sound like a plan deserving of unquestioning support, and there may well have been negative consequences. But it wasn’t a requirement, it applied to/was available to all member countries (except where the UK uniquely adopted a different definition, according to the Guardian, see below), and doesn’t seem to have been in any way vindictive. https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/br ... -the-chop/ https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 32706.html https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... redspecies https://www.sustainweb.org/orchards/project_background/

Sigh.
[url=https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/british-apple-trees-facing-the-chop/Euromyths: British apple trees facing the chop[/url

I take your points - I disagree that we have been at the forefront off EU development and progress - our influence has been inconsequential Blair took office. I think quite the reverse we have adopted far more of the EU dictats than us influencing the decisions made in Brussels. This is the crux of the matter - we have no influence and have to accept we are at the mercy of the EU law/decision makers.

How would you say the EU have pushed things on economically in the past 10 years - what great moves have they made that justifies the huge cost of its being? How is the trade deal with the US going?

I agree about the UK being demanding - it is exactly what I would expect. Why would we want to stay in the single market and the customs union with the even limited influence we have and the financial cost of doing so.

Finally how is that a host of countries not in the EU and smaller/bigger than the UK can quite happily survive trading with the EU on WTO terms without suffering the economic Armegedon you are suggesting the UK will experience outside of the EU?

This paranoia that we are being ruled by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels would be laughable if the right hadn't turned it into a touchstone that has led to our current mess.
Can you give us some examples of how "EU dictats" have affected your life? Please be extra careful to not confuse these "dictats" with UK law like Boris Johnson and so many Daily Mail headlines do.

If cost is the crux of your argument then it's a poor one - the cost of the EU is massively outweighed by the benefits it brings. Our contribution to the administration of the EU represents less than 0.1% of our GDP, a vanishingly tiny number.

Again, you are tragically misinformed so I'm going to ask for examples please.

The most important parts of trade are distance and cost and the two are, unsurprisingly, linked. To support your apparent argument can you give us details of the "host" of countries which trade with the EU on WTO terms? And which of them are geographically close such that the EU is by default the primary export market? I can help out - your second list will be about as long as the list of Warrington Grand Final victories.

Well said sir.
Our friends on the "leave£ side of the argument are still, after 3+ years, hoping for a better future but, just like the solution to the Irish backstop, all they have is some thing scribbled on the back of a fag packet and the "dream" of a trade deal with Donald

Quote Sal Paradise="Sal Paradise"I take your points - I disagree that we have been at the forefront off EU development and progress - our influence has been inconsequential Blair took office. I think quite the reverse we have adopted far more of the EU dictats than us influencing the decisions made in Brussels. This is the crux of the matter - we have no influence and have to accept we are at the mercy of the EU law/decision makers. How would you say the EU have pushed things on economically in the past 10 years - what great moves have they made that justifies the huge cost of its being? How is the trade deal with the US going? I agree about the UK being demanding - it is exactly what I would expect. Why would we want to stay in the single market and the customs union with the even limited influence we have and the financial cost of doing so. Finally how is that a host of countries not in the EU and smaller/bigger than the UK can quite happily survive trading with the EU on WTO terms without suffering the economic Armegedon you are suggesting the UK will experience outside of the EU?'" Here is a recent UN estimate of the trade cost of a no-deal Brexit. https://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails ... ionID=2176 For comparison/perspective, the UK’s net contribution to the EU in 2018 was £8.9 billion. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk ... y/CBP-7886 That’s about 0.4% of UK GDP, if my maths is right. Or about £132 per uk citizen, per year. Now, i’m not down playing down a price of more than £500 per year for a mean average family of four. Especially as it is to be a member of a club most of them don’t like. But it is estimated to be more than offset in trade cost with the EU alone, by about £12.9 billion (£4 billion net) just on tariff changes, before considering logistical disruptions and the preferential deals we have elsewhere in the world through the EU that we haven’t managed to rollover yet. Is it going to be economic Armageddon? Nope. Will we survive? Nearly everyone who would have done anyway, still will hopefully. But that seems to be setting the bar low to manufacture a win. It’s a cost-benefit thing, and it depends on how we each value the different costs and benefits. I’m not massively enthused by the EU, but it is not something that massively exercises me either - I just enjoy a good argument, as much as anything. Once we get into no-deal, disorderly exit territory though, for me it isn’t even close, and ‘not quite Armegeddon’ isn’t consoling me much.

Quote Sal Paradise="Sal Paradise"I take your points - I disagree that we have been at the forefront off EU development and progress - our influence has been inconsequential Blair took office. I think quite the reverse we have adopted far more of the EU dictats than us influencing the decisions made in Brussels. This is the crux of the matter - we have no influence and have to accept we are at the mercy of the EU law/decision makers. How would you say the EU have pushed things on economically in the past 10 years - what great moves have they made that justifies the huge cost of its being? How is the trade deal with the US going? I agree about the UK being demanding - it is exactly what I would expect. Why would we want to stay in the single market and the customs union with the even limited influence we have and the financial cost of doing so. Finally how is that a host of countries not in the EU and smaller/bigger than the UK can quite happily survive trading with the EU on WTO terms without suffering the economic Armegedon you are suggesting the UK will experience outside of the EU?'" Here is a recent UN estimate of the trade cost of a no-deal Brexit. https://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails ... ionID=2176 For comparison/perspective, the UK’s net contribution to the EU in 2018 was £8.9 billion. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk ... y/CBP-7886 That’s about 0.4% of UK GDP, if my maths is right. Or about £132 per uk citizen, per year. Now, i’m not down playing down a price of more than £500 per year for a mean average family of four. Especially as it is to be a member of a club most of them don’t like. But it is estimated to be more than offset in trade cost with the EU alone, by about £12.9 billion (£4 billion net) just on tariff changes, before considering logistical disruptions and the preferential deals we have elsewhere in the world through the EU that we haven’t managed to rollover yet. Is it going to be economic Armageddon? Nope. Will we survive? Nearly everyone who would have done anyway, still will hopefully. But that seems to be setting the bar low to manufacture a win. It’s a cost-benefit thing, and it depends on how we each value the different costs and benefits. I’m not massively enthused by the EU, but it is not something that massively exercises me either - I just enjoy a good argument, as much as anything. Once we get into no-deal, disorderly exit territory though, for me it isn’t even close, and ‘not quite Armegeddon’ isn’t consoling me much.

Quote Mild Rover="Mild Rover"Here is a recent UN estimate of the trade cost of a no-deal Brexit. https://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails ... ionID=2176 For comparison/perspective, the UK’s net contribution to the EU in 2018 was £8.9 billion. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk ... y/CBP-7886 That’s about 0.4% of UK GDP, if my maths is right. Or about £132 per uk citizen, per year.'" Before someone tries to distract with the difference between MR's 0.4% and my "less than 0.1%" of GDP, I was quoting the administrative cost of the EU, not net contributions (admin cost is about 7% of the EU budget so it ends up a lot less than 0.1% on this metric). Quote Mild Rover="Mild Rover"Is it going to be economic Armageddon? Nope. Will we survive? Nearly everyone who would have done anyway, still will hopefully. But that seems to be setting the bar low to manufacture a win.'" The great tragedy is that those with most to lose are most likely to suffer. We will battle through, no one said we wouldn't. But why should we, all to fix an ideological split in the Conservative party. We'll be a little bit poorer, a little bit sadder, a little bit less trusting and with our bonds of affection stretched. We'll end up (already are) embittered, divided by geography and by class and by generation. The only thing certain is that history will not be kind to the people who brought this division and destruction on our country.

Quote Mild Rover="Mild Rover"Here is a recent UN estimate of the trade cost of a no-deal Brexit. https://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails ... ionID=2176 For comparison/perspective, the UK’s net contribution to the EU in 2018 was £8.9 billion. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk ... y/CBP-7886 That’s about 0.4% of UK GDP, if my maths is right. Or about £132 per uk citizen, per year.'" Before someone tries to distract with the difference between MR's 0.4% and my "less than 0.1%" of GDP, I was quoting the administrative cost of the EU, not net contributions (admin cost is about 7% of the EU budget so it ends up a lot less than 0.1% on this metric). Quote Mild Rover="Mild Rover"Is it going to be economic Armageddon? Nope. Will we survive? Nearly everyone who would have done anyway, still will hopefully. But that seems to be setting the bar low to manufacture a win.'" The great tragedy is that those with most to lose are most likely to suffer. We will battle through, no one said we wouldn't. But why should we, all to fix an ideological split in the Conservative party. We'll be a little bit poorer, a little bit sadder, a little bit less trusting and with our bonds of affection stretched. We'll end up (already are) embittered, divided by geography and by class and by generation. The only thing certain is that history will not be kind to the people who brought this division and destruction on our country.

Indeed, the MP's on all sides who ignored a DEMOCRATIC VOTE and the EU politicians that desparately want our money in their trough.

It hasn't been ignored though, has it.
They are working their way through, in the hope that a decent solution can be found.

Unfortunately, the whole Brexit issue isn't/wasn't quite as simple as certain politicians told us that it would be to gain a "free trade" deal and then take the advantages of being able to negotiate our own deals with the rest of the world.
The whole issue has been driven by idealism on the right of the political spectrum, with some stalling techniques being used by some Tory members to fill their pockets with "anti Brexit gambling".
I dont actually think that you can blame the EU negotiators, who gave Mrs May an offer of a deal that she was happy with.

To try to be fair to everybody, when you look at the motivations of all the key players, few of them have have behaved terribly.

Cameron was under enormous pressure to have a referendum to put the issue to bed for the sake of Conservative unity, and see off the threat to them of UKIP. He fought ineffectively for Remain, because he wanted his party to stay united after he’d won and didn’t want to upset MPs he’d still need to rely on.

Johnson just really, really, really want to be PM one day and would do anything to try to make that happen. He has to bear responsibility for his actions, but blaming him for putting his ambition first is like blaming a tiger for not being vegan.

Corbyn - he’s ambivalent about the EU at best, and why should he have expended political capital on a mess of the Tories making?

May, she could have tried to take a cross party approach, but she wanted to hold her own together and asking her to work hand in glove with Red Jez would have been a huge ask of both of them, and i’m pretty confident it wouldn’t have worked.

Our democratically elected parliamentarians can’t form a majority for any single course of action, but that reflects the will of the people pretty well. Most people voted Leave, but most people are against leaving without a deal and most people don’t like the deal on the table or any other realistic deal. Which is their right, but it demonstrates a limitation of claiming a democratic mandate for a course of action that needs external agreement. My wife and I could unanimously agree we want a new Ferrari for the price of a Ford but expecting it to happen would be daft.