UK PM Spokesman: Much Work To Be Done To Bridge Significant Gaps Remaining With EU

This is becoming farcical.. Reality is EU have been trying to get UK to negotiate on basis of legal txts for months. Not that thats much comfort when you dealing with a country thats quite happy to break treaties and legal agreements willy-nilly. Just a bunch of chancers.

so gold up again now ?

That is interesting, I was under the impression it was the UK that was wanting legal texts and the EU was not prepared to go that way

Now you know why our UK government got someone in to mitigate the deal with a last name - FROST?

It bears the exact attitude of our current government for months....

But as the strong rumours going round at the moment, it will be at least till 4th Nov before our clown pm decides which way he wants to play blinking brexit....

donald trump win - >90% hard brexit with imported chlorinated chicken coming onto our dining table.

Biden win - our clown will be thinking what to think about to even start a conversation with the new administration,

GBP Week. So Sad

Stop kidding now. BoJo has already passed a law, breaking international laws, regarding the pre-deal he undersigned with EU aiming to secure peace in Northern Ireland.
Let the heirs to the Vice King of India and bla bla bla of the Empire where the sun never sets go their way! Ridiculous. Customs control. Closed borders. Finance centers to EU. Everybody happy!!

Not to skew the subject, but haven't you Brits been drinking chlorinated water for decades? And rinsing your eu purchased chicken in your water? American chicken is excellent, and i'm certain this was a propaganda ploy to turn off the consumer to cheaper, but better chicken.

Classic game of cat and mouse for retail traders

Good point to further discuss!

In UK, the officially authorised amount of chlorine is 0.5 mg/L - it is peanuts and therefore measurable.

At the moment, no one knows how much chlorine are from the chlorinated chicken cleaning process - scientifically, that is science is of still importance in this discussion? There are cases of inflated FAT chicken from injected water, again no one knows what is the contents of chlorine in such substandard traders chicken. In the latter, I am not implying it happened from and in US, who knows, but there had been cases of inflated water based chicken in UK of recent years.

I personally prefer not to consume something when there are so many unknowns. Thanks but no thanks - no offence

Does anyone here actually understand the chlorinated meat issue.?
The problem arises because the in the US, the use of chemical antimicrobial treatments like chlorine washes are designed to compensate for poor hygiene standards elsewhere in the supply chain (for example on farms).
The EU contends that consumers are better protected by a system that doesn’t allow processors the simple ‘get-out’ of treating their chicken with chemicals. And that strong hygene standards need to be maintained throughout the food production chain. As a result, EU processors are held responsible for the health of the birds the bring to market and only allowed to use cold air and water to decontaminate poultry carcasses.
There is actually nothing dangerous about chlorinated Chicken. However when (as with chlorination) producers are relieved of the obligation to deliver healthy carcasses to the market, the door suddenly opens to acceptance of production environments for poultry that are truly appalling and indemnify producers from any responsibility for even minimal animal welfare standards in the food production chain.
In contrast the EUs agripolicy requires robust minimal standards for animal welfare within the food chain that the US do not, Hence birds produced under US standards NEED the chemical treatment of meat so produced to make it safe.
EU producers without such options are responsible for producing chicken that are healthy at point of slaughter.
Take your choice.

I'm confused about the treaty the UK has broken comment, nothing has been broken because it hasn't been passed through the HoL. Bills can take numerous amendments in the HoC before they become law it's been that way for hundreds of years. On the issue with treaties signed as a member of the EU it clearly states that negotiations are in good faith because from the EU side it has not. That's contentious issue, it will also be an issue if any other member state has to go through this process, the treaties are written in such a way that nobody really leaves but just in case they do there's a clause added to make it look complete. The texts are all written in such a way that if you decide to leave you can change your mind at any time it's like a revolving door with no exit.

It is official UK Government policy to adopt a Bill they they themselves admit break treaty obligations, and violate and jeopardize the GFA. Apologist narratives about it not yet been passed YET, due to HoL resistance and the possibility of HoL amendments to the bill are irrelevant. The introduction of the Bill shows the clear intention of the UK Government to breach its treaty obligation.. and this has been acknowledged and admitted by a Government minister.
There is nothing further to discuss about the now impaired integrity of the UK Government in this matter.