The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (56 Viewers)

[skybluetony176]

My view is if it’s safe for the consumer

“Fresh analysis by Sustain published today flags food safety fears for future UK trade deals. Figures suggest that the percentage of people who fall ill with food poisoning annually is up to ten times higher in the US than the UK. Sustain fears treating increased food poisoning could increase deaths from food poisoning and cost the NHS and UK economy at least £1bn extra per year.”

We send £360M a week to the EU. Let’s spend it on funding the NHS to combat food poisoning cases from the consumption of inferior American food products instead.

 

[Sick Boy]

“Fresh analysis by Sustain published today flags food safety fears for future UK trade deals. Figures suggest that the percentage of people who fall ill with food poisoning annually is up to ten times higher in the US than the UK. Sustain fears treating increased food poisoning could increase deaths from food poisoning and cost the NHS and UK economy at least £1bn extra per year.”

We send £360M a week to the EU. Let’s spend it on funding the NHS to combat food poisoning cases from the consumption of inferior American food products instead.

And screw over the country's own industries by allowing in cheap crap.

 

[skybluetony176]

And screw over the country's own industries by allowing in cheap crap.

It all points to a lowering of animal welfare standards in this country to allow local food producers to compete. Shame on us.

 

[Astute]

I've actually said that the UK should have gone for the EEA option as a compromise, something you seem to ignore.

So members of the cabinet are not important in shaping the country's future?

These members do not have the massive say that you make out all the time. You pick a certain person then make out they will make it go badly.

Compromise? We need more than a compromise.

 

[Astute]

In reality not a lot has actually changed, I still expect Johnson to repackage May's deal and try and get it through parliament.

Can't see it at all. If a no deal happens there will be plenty of time to make a deal before tariffs are introduced. I can't see a total stop of people moving here frim the EU either. And nobody has shown any evidence to anything changing even if there is a no deal scenario.

 

[Grendel]

And screw over the country's own industries by allowing in cheap crap.

Right

UK has nearly 800 livestock mega farms, investigation reveals

 

[Sick Boy]

These members do not have the massive say that you make out all the time. You pick a certain person then make out they will make it go badly.

Compromise? We need more than a compromise.

Where do I always make out that EEA members have a massive say? I don't think I have once said it?

 

[Sick Boy]

Can't see it at all. If a no deal happens there will be plenty of time to make a deal before tariffs are introduced. I can't see a total stop of people moving here frim the EU either. And nobody has shown any evidence to anything changing even if there is a no deal scenario.

Well, if he does withhold the withdrawal money, then there aren't even going to be trade talks.

No one has said it would be a total stop, have they? But FoM would end.

 

[Sick Boy]

Right

UK has nearly 800 livestock mega farms, investigation reveals

It is shameful and for me this style of farming raises serious ethical questions. Countries should be looking to move away from this model rather than embracing it. t's like breeding animals as though they're a commodity in a factory.

 

[fernandopartridge]

And here we go again.

It is OK to call certain people delusional and say it is delusional for anyone to expect the EU to want to make a deal with us after we leave the EU. But then you pull me up for wanting anyone making these comments to explain why they wouldn't want to make a deal with us. You are another one who just wants the comments on here to go in one direction.

What a joke.

I rarely bother on this thread any more, I've stopped calling you obtuse because it probably isn't you being obtuse it's just you not understanding.

 

[Astute]

Where do I always make out that EEA members have a massive say? I don't think I have once said it?

Who said EEA members?

You had just had a go at Patrl as though things are her fault. Yet you fail to mention what she is to blame for.

 

[Astute]

Well, if he does withhold the withdrawal money, then there aren't even going to be trade talks.

No one has said it would be a total stop, have they? But FoM would end.

So why are we supposed to be at risk of no food on shelves and medicines running out?

 

[Astute]

I rarely bother on this thread any more, I've stopped calling you obtuse because it probably isn't you being obtuse it's just you not understanding.

Not understanding what?

You are always at the front of the queue to have a go at me but never explain yourself. You think it is OK to throw insults about instead. How about explaining yourself and if you are correct I won't show you where you are wrong for once.

 

[Astute]

It is shameful and for me this style of farming raises serious ethical questions. Countries should be looking to move away from this model rather than embracing it. t's like breeding animals as though they're a commodity in a factory.

Yes it is shameful.

But cheap food is needed for those who can't afford free range. Or do we stop paying farmers for not farming? This would bring prices down as there would then be a plentiful supply and ban intensive farming of all kinds.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Can't see it at all. If a no deal happens there will be plenty of time to make a deal before tariffs are introduced. I can't see a total stop of people moving here frim the EU either. And nobody has shown any evidence to anything changing even if there is a no deal scenario.

We do know that EU immigration is down sharply and that interestingly free movement can't completely stop the day after Flip Off Europe Day since we don't require people to register on arrival.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Yes it is shameful.

But cheap food is needed for those who can't afford free range. Or do we stop paying farmers for not farming? This would bring prices down as there would then be a plentiful supply and ban intensive farming of all kinds.

I don't get this argument. Carrots can be bought for as little as 6p each and fresh vegetables are some of the cheapest things you can buy. This would free people up to buy several pieces of good meat if they really want it without having to spend ridiculous money. Ready meals and takeaway are far more expensive

 

[Sick Boy]

Yes it is shameful.

But cheap food is needed for those who can't afford free range. Or do we stop paying farmers for not farming? This would bring prices down as there would then be a plentiful supply and ban intensive farming of all kinds.

It has a lot to do with modern eating habits and the demand for meat at the cheapest prices, which has led to some shocking standards of animal welfare.

 

[Sick Boy]

I don't get this argument. Carrots can be bought for as little as 6p each and fresh vegetables are some of the cheapest things you can buy. This would free people up to buy several pieces of good meat if they really want it without having to spend ridiculous money. Ready meals and takeaway are far more expensive

I think youy're forgetting that a lot of people can't actually cook.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I think youy're forgetting that a lot of people can't actually cook.

In the Google age that's unforgiveable

 

[Sick Boy]

Who said EEA members?

You had just had a go at Patrl as though things are her fault. Yet you fail to mention what she is to blame for.

I've already mentioned her unworkable idea of ending FoM immediately on 31st October. How you can claim the cabinet has no power is beyond me

 

[Sick Boy]

So why are we supposed to be at risk of no food on shelves and medicines running out?

Because it wouldn't be a total stop but some disrutpion would be inevitable, hence why there have been warnings.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Not sure this lower standard foodstuffs is quite right SBD. My view is if it’s safe for the consumer it should be their call. Ill use the well used example of chlorinated chicken. If it is available and clearly marked by supermarkets but is cheaper, why shouldn’t someone on a lower budget be able buy it ?

As far as I am aware chlorinated chicken has never had any proven health risks associated with it. Even the European Food Safety Association confirmed it is safe to eat. The EUs argument is that it MAY mean farmers cut corners earlier in the farming/slaughter process. I presume that mean they MAY also have excellent hygiene standards and yet still chlorinate it for extra safety. Who knows.

Not quite my cup of tea but nor are dirt cheap sausages that have various offcuts and shit (not literally....hopefully !) piled in that would probably make your/my stomach turn.

It’s like anything with free market trading though. It’s weighing up the benefits and risks for both the suppliers and the consumers.

Ps also, I’d be shocked, especially operating in such a competitive space, if major supermarkets would buy produce in without understanding/knowing the suppliers hygiene standards. They could literally be slaughtered (sorry, couldn’t resist....it’s bank holiday afterall !!!) by their competition if anything untoward was uncovered.

I wasn't just talking about chlorinated chicken (I believe the EU allow chlorine washes of vegetables) and we do have some poor quality processed food out there.

In general US foods seem to have more additives, preservatives, salt etc. Our food producers would almost be forced into following this route in order to be competitive and food quality will go down, and thus all the health problems associated with it.

In the UK with an NHS the government should, in theory, care about food safety and quality a great deal more because it costs them to treat food poisoning and long term health problems from poor diet. In a US system that is private insurance led (even with the ACA) it's less of a concern for them. A real cynic would say it's an economic opportunity on two fronts - the food and the healthcare.

On the other hand you can argue all the poor quality cuts of meat etc, as long as they're not dangerous, are reducing wastage and thus the number of animals needing to be reared. This reduces farmland needed for pasture and growing animal feed and the climate change effect from all that whilst allowing people on a tight budget to feed their families? Turkey twizzler anyone?

 

[Astute]

It has a lot to do with modern eating habits and the demand for meat at the cheapest prices, which has led to some shocking standards of animal welfare.

And foodbanks.

There are more people that are needy but can't get past the shame of going to one than thise who waste their money so need one. Modern society is fucked up. The rich are winning.

 

[Astute]

I've already mentioned her unworkable idea of ending FoM immediately on 31st October. How you can claim the cabinet has no power is beyond me

No. Certain people have nowhere near as much power as you think. Or do you think people like Patel has 100% of the decision making and there are no discussions beforehand.

And they cynic in me says she got the position because of her name more than anything else. Someone called Smith would get more criticism.

 

[Astute]

Because it wouldn't be a total stop but some disrutpion would be inevitable, hence why there have been warnings.

So the plans of the EU to stop disruption and hardship won't work?

 

[Astute]

I wasn't just talking about chlorinated chicken (I believe the EU allow chlorine washes of vegetables) and we do have some poor quality processed food out there.

In general US foods seem to have more additives, preservatives, salt etc. Our food producers would almost be forced into following this route in order to be competitive and food quality will go down, and thus all the health problems associated with it.

In the UK with an NHS the government should, in theory, care about food safety and quality a great deal more because it costs them to treat food poisoning and long term health problems from poor diet. In a US system that is private insurance led (even with the ACA) it's less of a concern for them. A real cynic would say it's an economic opportunity on two fronts - the food and the healthcare.

On the other hand you can argue all the poor quality cuts of meat etc, as long as they're not dangerous, are reducing wastage and thus the number of animals needing to be reared. This reduces farmland needed for pasture and growing animal feed and the climate change effect from all that whilst allowing people on a tight budget to feed their families? Turkey twizzler anyone?

Half of me thinks that we should have the choice of the quality of the food we consume. The other half thinks we shouldn't allow a lower grade for the poor.

 

[Sick Boy]

No. Certain people have nowhere near as much power as you think. Or do you think people like Patel has 100% of the decision making and there are no discussions beforehand.

And they cynic in me says she got the position because of her name more than anything else. Someone called Smith would get more criticism.

Where have I said she has 100% power? And of course it's based upon discussions, which is why I mentioned earlier about it being part of the government's rhetoric. Due to the lack of planning/current databases/registrations of EU citizens in the UK it is completely unworkable...however, I still wouldn't put it past them to try and do it.

Patel gets plenty of criticism from certain sections of the media, she's a nasty piece of work.

 

[Sick Boy]

So the plans of the EU to stop disruption and hardship won't work?

Why would the EU suffer disruption and hardship? The EU plans won't completely avoid disruption, in my opinion. It's up to the UK to take care of itself, even though Johnson seems to be taking zero responsibilty and blame everyone else in case things go wrong.

He's said that the UK will be able to cope perfectly though and we all know that he's a man of his word - hahaha.

 

[Sick Boy]

Half of me thinks that we should have the choice of the quality of the food we consume. The other half thinks we shouldn't allow a lower grade for the poor.

That's the thing, those who have no choice would be the ones having to actually eat it, while I'm sure those imposing it would never touch it.

 

[skybluetony176]

he's a man of his word

Pork pie makers and No 10 clash over Johnson claim

 

[djr8369]

Half of me thinks that we should have the choice of the quality of the food we consume. The other half thinks we shouldn't allow a lower grade for the poor.

I think the issue with lowering standards is it will turn into a race to the bottom. It can be framed as choice but really it’s about somebody making more profit. Governments need to enforce some kind of base standard to protect their people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Astute]

Where have I said she has 100% power? And of course it's based upon discussions, which is why I mentioned earlier about it being part of the government's rhetoric. Due to the lack of planning/current databases/registrations of EU citizens in the UK it is completely unworkable...however, I still wouldn't put it past them to try and do it.

Patel gets plenty of criticism from certain sections of the media, she's a nasty piece of work.

That is the problem I have with the press. They aim for their target depending on what point they want to put across. But if they were doing their job right they would go for all of those who hold the power from all sides of the arguments.

 

[Astute]

Why would the EU suffer disruption and hardship? The EU plans won't completely avoid disruption, in my opinion. It's up to the UK to take care of itself, even though Johnson seems to be taking zero responsibilty and blame everyone else in case things go wrong.

He's said that the UK will be able to cope perfectly though and we all know that he's a man of his word - hahaha.

If we suffer disruption so will others. If the ports get blocked for us they get blocked for everyone else. France will suffer the most out of all of them and they didn't start this shitfest.

 

[Astute]

That's the thing, those who have no choice would be the ones having to actually eat it, while I'm sure those imposing it would never touch it.

Exactly.

A way for the rich to feed the poor and most probably get richer in the process.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I think the issue with lowering standards is it will turn into a race to the bottom. It can be framed as choice but really it’s about somebody making more profit. Governments need to enforce some kind of base standard to protect their people.

To be fair the US does enforce a base standard - it just happens to be lower than ours (and ours is hardly amazing).

They'd rather spend trillions of fancy weapons and surveillance systems because they're cool, so make a massive thing about a very small number of extremists. Food standards and healthcare are boring - who wants to buy Dull Industries CT2000 scanner when you can have an F42 Deathstrike stealth fighter/bomber fitted out with Thundercunt missiles?