Josey Wales

Hi Johnsond - Not sure how you came to all those conclusions, i don't recall anyone making all those assertions, but hey ho! There is so much there to unpick, it would waste too much time for us all. Better to disagree agreeably and move on. Hi Oldfeller and Stubby - I kind of agreed with your posts. However differently we all view the world, the end result is that one way or the other we are all heading for hell in a handcart. Enjoy your dinners!

Hi Johnsond - Never said the Dublin Agreement was a roaring success, rather that there was a facility to return migrants that no longer exists. It worked both ways in that the UK was also responsible for asylum seekers in other parts of the EU who had family members already in the UK. Numbers of returns were indeed low......but a damn sight higher than currently! My main point, in trying to be as brief as possible, was that as limited as it was, it was still a way to return people that we no longer have. Numbers of boat crossings have increased since 2020 when we formally left the EU. Add that with the French waving the boats off as there is no longer a shared EU border...and hey presto, it just got even easier to get to the UK! Nothing exists in isolation, rather a series of events combined once we left the EU to make it more worthwhile to try. P.S. I'm getting the distinct impression we need to change the subject to soup!

1) Steven P is correct in pointing out that since we left the EU we also left the Dublin Regulations whereby someone crossing the Channel 'could' be returned to the first 'safe' country they arrived in. Is it coincidence the numbers of those attempting to cross the Channel rose sharply in 2020 when we formally left? 2) Yes, tree-fancier123 is correct that migrant numbers are on the up due to global events, but two things can both be true at the same time. Brexit has exacerbated it, especially as regards to returning those who have crossed the Channel! This is further underlined by.... 3) .....Johnsond's post whereby the French are waving off those in dinghies with a 'Bon Voyage'! Since we left the EU to 'take back control' of our borders, why should the French care who leaves their own borders when the numbers of those claiming asylum there, as in most of Europe, are far higher than those claiming asylum in the UK? Or did we 'take back control' as long as the French would do it for us? Before, when we were both members of the EU, it was a shared border, with shared responsibilities and a reason to work together. Not anymore. I can imagine more than a few Frenchmen having a good chuckle at this thread. 'Bon Voyage' indeed! 4) As ever, the numbers of immigrants (across Europe and including the UK) coming over legally on work visas to work in the NHS, construction etc, is far higher than those crossing the channel, both under the current Labour administration and under the last Conservative one. This is the point Sime42 is trying to make. 5) On this last point, if you think this would be any different under Reform, then Linden Kemkaren, a Reform county councillor in Kent clearly did not get the memo, as this last week she wrote to the government to express her 'grave concern' about the possible exodus of care staff from overseas, y'know, the immigrants that are coming over here taking all our jobs.

1) Sime 42 is correct, there really needs to be a greater distinction, or even understanding of, the differences between legal and illegal immigration. It does muddy the discussion. 2) Dan has a point in that whilst we were still in the EU, under the Dublin Agreement, those who crossed the channel 'could' be returned to the first 'safe' country they arrived in. With Brexit we left this agreement and 'took back control' of our own borders, however the numbers returned previously would not appear to be massive. There is no current asylum policy or agreement between the UK and EU. What can be said is that awareness of there being no legislation to return those attempting to cross the Channel, has probably contributed to more attempting it. The numbers since 2020, when we formally left the EU have risen sharply. 3) Worth noting here that the 1951 Refugee Convention does not require a person to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. From what little i understand, UK case law would appear to support this. 4) Regarding tree-fancier 123's point, worth noting also that other European countries receive a far larger number, or quota, of asylum claims than we do, and always have. 5) All major European countries are seeing a rise in legal immigration, with a tripling of work permits this last decade granted to non - EEA nationals. The UK is no different, so in this case is nothing to do with being in or out of the EU. The reasons are many. 6) I offer the above merely as counters to some claims i see about immigration that do not measure up to scrutiny. I am not saying there is not a problem. 7) As this is the POTUS thread, i should just say that, though i'm no Chelsea fan, i did feel sorry for them celebrating their Club World Cup with the current POTUS being dragged off the stage by Infantino. Cole Palmer's face was a picture! Before there's a pile on, i would say this for any POTUS!

Mick - I read your post/review of the Husqvarna 542i, looks to be a good saw. Certainly like that it has a clutch. Loved the power of the Stihl MSA 300 when i tried it, but curious to see what the Husqvarna 550i looks like when it comes out. 'When' being the all important word with Husqvarna. For how you describe your work set up, i get it, battery works.

As others on here have often said, its a case of the right tools for the right job and the right place. After using my Stihl FS460 to strim my small lawn, and peppering the windows with debris and finally cracking one, i realised i needed something more suitable than something i normally use to cut bramble and scrub, so got the Stihl KMA135 R kombi engine with strimmer head and polesaw attachment. I love it for work around the garden, and can see the benefits for some one man band gardeners as against estate guys, but personally, for work, i prefer committed tools. The merits of 2 stroke versus battery are many. Still a little nervous with battery, a 2 stroke will give you notice that something is not quite right, a battery tool is either working or its not. So far, completely sold on battery hedgetrimmers, the run time is fantastic, i can get virtually a whole day out of one battery, and can see the same benefits with a battery polesaw, but for chainsaws and brushcutters, the battery run time and power for what i need is just not quite there yet....nor, looking at some of the later comments, any suitable charging points.

Hi Mark Bolam I am in complete agreement with you as regards our animal welfare standards in comparison to some countries within the EU. As far as the current negotiations are concerned, my understanding so far is that the Common Veterinary Area (CVA) agreement will, among other things, mean the UK's ban on live animal exports will remain in place. Further, from what i have read so far, the deal also empowers the UK to negotiate opt outs in future discussions so that our, as you correctly say, superior animal welfare proposals are not put at risk. The devil is in the detail, which is why i replied to Squaredy's post originally. Nothing is signed yet. You never know, i might end up slighting the bastards alongside the rest of you, and eating humble pie. Lets see. I respect your view of the EU, and believe me, i am not someone who subscribes to the view of it being a Utopian ideal. There is a lot i do not like, but ironically they were often a good brake upon the worst excesses of our own governments, red or blue. It is illuminating to see what EU laws our past governments did say 'no' to, and the majority were concerning workers rights and environmental protection. I try not to be so politically dogmatic that i refuse to see where one party can do both good and utter shite at the same time. Currently, i agree with Labour trying to improve upon the disastrous Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) that Johnson and Frost agreed with the EU in their rush to 'Get Brexit done!'' It gave the EU so much, they are happy with it and unwilling to dramatically change it. It works better for them, to our detriment. It needs to be changed. Labour are trying that. On the other hand, i hate Labour for the current planning and infrastructure bill currently going through parliament. Out of the EU, and the protection their legislation gave some of our designated wildlife sites, Labour are planning to utilize this loophole to bulldoze wildlife rich sites for development. Lodge Hill, in Kent, a fantastic Nightingale habitat on former MOD land in your county, and where i am from originally, is under threat again. FFS! Twats, all of them! Like the EU, or hate it, Labour or Tory, leaver or remainer, it truly makes no difference now, but Brexit has caused more problems than it could ever solve. It's done. We left the EU. We are not going back. Time to move on. This is our future, which is why i said we need to address it, not glower across the channel and never speak to our most important trading partner ever again, and why i said in my last post that we are more similar in our current situation to Switzerland, with an economy not too different to ours, also not in the EU, and that perhaps we need to learn from the never ending discussions they have with the EU and see our future in that. Not great, no, but that is where we are.

Hi Squaredy I did indeed see the first post with the screenshot by Martin Howe KC, barrister specializing in law and litigation, and sometime Spectator contributor, yet that does not make that the definitive, or final, word upon the subject. Other interpretations are just as valid, and maybe more nuanced. Many experts in their field write upon this subject, not just the one you have quoted. I read others, just as qualified as Martin Howe, if not more so, and come to different conclusions, hence why i replied to it in a more positive light, but hey, this is a discussion. It would be boring if we all agreed with each other. Am i saying i am right? No, just offering a different opinion, a different perspective. Where i agree with Martin Howe is that no actual legal texts have been prepared. Discussions are ongoing. So nothing of course would be signed. Barely the revelation of the century. That he sees this as a road leading back to the Single Market, and that we may be subject to a whole array of 'foreign laws' is a mental leap of gymnastic proportions. Where i gather you are unhappy is in the oversight of the ECJ in this 'reset'. As Howe puts it, this would be 'dynamically' applied, rather than 'directly' applied. In practice, this means ECJ jurisdiction would be kept at arms length, but that yes, if the dispute was not settled through independent arbitration, the ECJ remains the ultimate authority. At this point, i would remind you that we already have 'direct' ECJ jurisdiction, as negotiated by the last Conservative government, in the Windsor Framework (that partially replaced the Northern Ireland Protocol) as NI remains within the single Market for goods. Why the sudden outrage now? We already have it, as last time i looked Northern Ireland was part of the UK. We are having to follow 'their' rules anyway for UK firms to export into our largest and nearest market, but where is the outrage that we have still not reciprocated full customs controls on EU imports, rather, just wave them through? The current system favors EU importers and disadvantages UK exporters. I find it amazing that so few people comment upon how our exporters are drowning in red tape yet EU importers have none of it. This reset would balance the scales a bit and help UK exports. Because of this, most big business in the UK broadly welcomes this alignment to SPS standards. Regulatory alignment, as that is all it is, is better for business, our economy, and most importantly in this case, our food security. Dodgy horse meat from the EU waved through customs because we are still not enforcing full customs checks, so everyone knows this is the place to send it? No thanks. I get it, we left the EU so we could make our own regulations, but the bigger markets regulatory standards will always be the benchmark business aligns with as it is more profitable. Look at the hullabaloo around tethered bottle caps. UK bottled drinks manufacturers had a choice. Align to the standards of the larger market, the EU, or have two production lines, one for the EU, and one for the UK market, so we would not have to align with their standards. The manufacturers willingly chose to produce to the standards of the larger market. The EU. Can you blame them? Or look at the UKCA mark on so much of the equipment we all use in our day to day jobs. A separate, UK conformity testing process, no different to the CE conformity testing process, that was going to be phased into legislation so manufacturers had no choice. Many smaller businesses could not afford to do two testing processes, but obviously the big boys could afford it, and started to test kit against the two standards. Do you think that Stihl or Husqvarna, for example, absorbed the cost for this dual testing process for both CE (their larger market) and for UKCA ( a smaller market)? Or do you think this added cost was passed on to those customers in the country asking for this second testing process? We all paid for it. Divergence from EU standards is merely window dressing. No wonder the last Conservative government quietly buried the UKCA mark. Look, i doubt we will agree, (though i respect that when you do so with others it is with clarity and politeness) but at some point, as illustrated by tethered bottle caps and the UKCA mark, gravity matters, and business is largely welcoming alignment. This is in no way being back in the EU. If you had titled your thread 'Welcome to Switzerland', i feel that would have been more accurate. Another country not in the EU, constantly disagreeing with the EU, but constantly having to negotiate for access to their markets. That is all this is in my view.

QFirst time poster here. Only joined last year, but for years had logged on for the chainsaw wisdom of @spudulike and ADW, the giggles from Wirral Boy and Logdaft and the free for all of 'Making the news today', so aware of the minefield I am entering. Mine is probably not a popular opinion, but I see no problem with this 'reset' with the EU, nor anything alarming or controversial. The Security & Defence Partnership is fairly typical for a EU - third country partnership, whereas the extension of the current fisheries agreement within the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) originally negotiated by Johnson and Frost for the Conservatives, is merely that. An extension. More importantly for the fishing debate is the alignment to SPS standards which should make exporting to the EU easier. Around 80% of what is caught in British waters was exported to the EU, but out of the Single Market and Customs Union , the shellfish industry specifically was hard hit. New Zealand is aligned with the EU as regards SPS standards for importing meat into the EU. As a third country, if you want to trade with one of the worlds big trade blocks, this is normal. The Youth Mobility Scheme? A work permit for 18-30 year olds similar to the model already available to young Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians and South Koreans. Why is it controversial if some Europeans want to work in London or Manchester as our Commonwealth friends do? This is not a return of Freedom of Movement (FoM). The free movement of people, goods, services and capital has been ruled out and would require rejoining the Single Market. The movement of people to Europe and the UK not native to the region nor citizens of an EU state is completely different to FoM 'within' the EU that we had as members. There is much misunderstanding around migration, and rising immigration levels to this country are nothing to do with the EU and FoM as we ended it, but irregular immigration from outside the EU has risen both due to government policy and that in leaving the EU we left the Dublin Regulations whereby those seeking asylum could be returned to the first EU country they arrived in. I neither want to rehash old arguments about Brexit, it happened, we have left the EU, nor engage in the immigration debate, it is discussed endlessly elsewhere, but as a country I feel that sometimes we lack accountability for our choices. The vote to leave the EU was carried out, the mandate fulfilled, but as a trade block on our doorstep with whom we have extensive trading ties I welcome a reset of relations in comparison to recent years whereby our politicians and media banged on endlessly about the Second World War and the Fourth Reich like an embarrassing drunk trying to start a fight at a party, or the annoying friend that constantly reminds you of a great favour they did you once and will never, ever, let you forget it no matter how many times you say thankyou.