If we vote for Brexit what happens

antrobus

Nick_C wrote: »

Thanks for that.

For the record, Commision Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1333/2011 of 19 December 2011 states that the bananas must be "free from malformation or abnormal curvature"

Yup. All "unripened green bananas" that are "intended to be supplied fresh to the consumer" must meet the quality requirements "subject to the special provisions for each class and the tolerances allowed".

I'm glad to be of assistance.

mayonnaise

BobQ wrote: »

What exactly is wrong with stating that the bananas most of us buy should be follow quality standards such as:

No idea Bob.
I've been trying to get an answer from our resident europhobes on that one, but no luck so far.

BobQ

antrobus wrote: »

For the record Regulation (EC) No 2257/94 was replaced by Regulation (EU) No 1333/2011 many years ago.

EU relents and lets a banana be a banana
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/world/europe/12iht-food.4.17771299.html

Bent banana and curved cucumber rules dropped
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2453204/Bent-banana-and-curved-cucumber-rules-dropped-by-EU.html

This makes it even more absurd that we keep getting anti-EU speakers and parts of the media continue to talk about bent bananas 5 years afterwards.

So when you buy a Class 1 Banana in ASDA, what does it mean?

Someone is still standardising bananas!

mayonnaise

prosaver wrote: »

Same with France not processing the refugees in the jungle camps.Have they got fines or anything?
Whats going on?

Why should France be fined if the Dublin agreement states that refugees should be processed in the member state through which the refugee first enters the EU?

Generali

michaels wrote: »

This is after all exactly how pay negotiations are carried out. Step 1 is for the Unions to get a strike approved via ballot with a big mandate and schedule in some strike dates, then negotiations can commence in earnest.

I can see DC (or BoJo) having a much stronger hand in negotiating if they need to win a referendum to stay than currently where we need to overcome the fear factor to vote to leave.

It's how negotiations are done in bad faith.

If someone was negotiating with me like that at work I'd have to consider whether I wanted to carry on doing business with them or not.

If you want to stay vote remain, if you want to leave vote to leave. The rest is just a silly ploy to try to mop up a few more votes from the credulous.

Generali

BobQ wrote: »

This makes it even more absurd that we keep getting anti-EU speakers and parts of the media continue to talk about bent bananas 5 years afterwards.

So when you buy a Class 1 Banana in ASDA, what does it mean?

Someone is still standardising bananas!

A quick antrobus (the Google of the mind) let me recall that the class 1 etc standards are agreed across Europe. That means that if you are a farmer growing food to sell across Europe you have 1 standard rather than 27 to adhere to.

A quick Google (the antrobus of the internet) throws up this:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/comply-with-marketing-standards-for-fresh-fruit-and-vegetables

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

indeed so, there are many many standards that are necessary and invaluable: cosmetic ones are low down my pecking order unless of course, cosmetics are matters of essence
I see no benefit having a standard about the curvature of a banana.

The original regulation was not about the retailing of bent bananas. It was a technical standard on the characteristics of bananas imported into the EU by wholesalers. The public did need to know what they were.

The issue was that if the standard did not exist, retailers tend to reject batches of bananas resulting it 5-10% being rejected. Telling those harvesting bananas what they can export is not "cosmetic" it is setting minimum requirements.

mayonnaise

Interesting piece in the Economist. How a brexit would not only weaken Britain and the EU, but The West as a whole.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21693584-leaving-eu-would-hurt-britainand-would-also-deal-terrible-blow-west-real-danger

The Brexiters’ case is that Britain is held back by Europe: unshackled, it could soar as an open economy that continued to trade with the EU and all round the world. That is possible in theory, but as our briefing (see Briefing) explains, it is not how things would work in practice. At a minimum, the EU would allow full access to its single market only in return for adherence to rules that Eurosceptics are keen to jettison. If Norway and Switzerland (whose arrangements with the EU many Brexiters idolise) are a guide, the union would also demand the free movement of people and a big payment to its budget before allowing unfettered access to the market.

Worse, the EU would have a strong incentive to impose a harsh settlement to discourage other countries from leaving. The Brexit camp’s claim that Europe needs Britain more than the other way round is fanciful: the EU takes almost half Britain’s exports, whereas Britain takes less than 10% of the EU’s; and the British trade deficit is mostly with the Germans and Spanish, not with the other 25 countries that would have to agree on a new trade deal.
To some Eurosceptics these hardships would be worth it if they meant reclaiming sovereignty from Europe, whose bureaucrats and judges interfere with everything from bankers’ bonuses to working-time limits.

(and bendy bananas )

Yet the gain would be partly illusory. In a globalised world, power is necessarily pooled and traded: Britain gives up sovereignty in exchange for clout through its memberships of NATO, the IMF and countless other power-sharing, rule-setting institutions. Signing up to treaties on trade, nuclear power or the environment involves submitting to regulations set jointly with foreigners, in return for greater gains. Britain outside the EU would be on the sidelines: notionally independent from, but in fact still constrained by rules it would have no role in formulating. It would be a purer but rather powerless sort of sovereignty.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

A quick antrobus (the Google of the mind) let me recall that the class 1 etc standards are agreed across Europe. That means that if you are a farmer growing food to sell across Europe you have 1 standard rather than 27 to adhere to.

A quick Google (the antrobus of the internet) throws up this:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/comply-with-marketing-standards-for-fresh-fruit-and-vegetables

it is indeed absurd to expect a consumer to decide for themselves whether to buy an apple which is 3/4 red or one only 1/2 red

and yet they get a vote about whether to stay or go from the EU

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

A quick antrobus (the Google of the mind) let me recall that the class 1 etc standards are agreed across Europe. That means that if you are a farmer growing food to sell across Europe you have 1 standard rather than 27 to adhere to.

A quick Google (the antrobus of the internet) throws up this:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/comply-with-marketing-standards-for-fresh-fruit-and-vegetables

On the other hand if you are short of a standard there is always someone else willing to produce one. Step forward the FAO of the UN, standard 205, updated in 2005 appears much the same as the gov.uk page you quote:D

http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/standards/list-of-standards/en/