Innovindil Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 22 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: Fears of a developing meat scandal as it becomes apparent that British meat factories are routinely failing to meet standards https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/23/fear-of-uk-meat-scandal-as-data-shows-hygiene-breaches-at-most-plants Capitalism needs to be regulated. If the regulations aren’t enforced and businesses know they can get away with not adhering to them you’re going to have problems. But Prof Hugh Pennington, a renowned expert in bacteriology, pointed out that “Widespread breaches [are] obviously a bad thing, but their detection shows that the regulatory system seems to be working. In the past, outbreaks occurred because the regulators were missing the breaches.” And an FSA spokesperson said: “We carry out thousands of audits and unannounced inspections of meat plants each year to verify that food hygiene standards are being met. Issues that may pose imminent or serious risk to public health will result in immediate and robust enforcement action being taken. It is regulated and enforced. See Russell Hume going bust for details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 9 hours ago, Carl the Llama said: Right, and if we can't find better value - which seems likely if we want to maintain quality - then we're left in the awkward position of having to pay a worse price for our current trades. Why will we pay a worse price and why is stuff from non EU countries bound to be worse quality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 9 hours ago, Alf Bentley said: You have no need to convince me that there are people who have offensive opinions of Brexiteers or who hold them in contempt. I stated as much in the post that you were responding to (in bold above). Presumably, you will similarly admit that there are Brexit supporters who hold Remainers in contempt and view them as naive fools, traitorous communists etc? I've never denied that there are people with narrow-minded, contemptuous attitudes on both sides. My problem is when people like Phillips use propaganda to apply that to "Remainers" in general or "many Remainers" etc. A fair few Remainers view many Brexiteers as "imbeciles", just as a fair few Brexiteers view many Remainers as privileged, naive, virtue-signalling twats. "Racists" would be another common accusation - true of a minority, but not the majority, I'd say, just as it's true that a minority of Remainers are naive, virtue-signalling twats! "Nazis" would be a less common view, one limited to a few students and Hard Left loudmouths, I'd say - just as only a few Brexiteers would see Remainers as "traitors". As I said in the post that you replied to, I'm sure some on both sides who are in a minority where they work feel vulnerable in various ways - sometimes with justification, sometimes not. You always seem very loath to admit any failings of even a tiny minority on your own side, Webbo, I must say. I would say that any criticism of remainder is a reaction to the blind hatred of brexiteers and the attempts to overturn the result by the remainders. People who feel that way about Leave are more likely to be in a position of power. We've not seen any reports of people who feel that backing remain would damage their career. If there had been it would have been enthusiastically reported in the Guardian and gleefully posted on here. Now I don't deny there are people on our side that are also OTT in their hate, but as I said, they're not usually in a position of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 7 hours ago, leicsmac said: I feel somewhat responsible for starting this whole lot off by referencing Ms Phillips article in the first place. FWIW I still think the point of my doing so was to draw attention to her disparaging of the scientific community in the name of furthering her own religious agenda, and that it did a disservice to Brexit by comparing those who support it to those who support two theories treated with dismissal (and most certainly not contempt or anything that would come close to career threatening) in the scientific community, rather than a wider debate regarding Brexit in its own instance. That's Mr. Slow Workless Day to you, ser. I believe Melanie Phillips is an atheist Jew, I'm not certain though. You don't have to religious to defend the rights of religious people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murphy Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 I haven't waded through 519 pages of this but I have a genuine and probably naive question regarding Brexit. If our exports to EU total £225bn and tarriffs are generally 2-3%, so we would pay £6bn, and our net contribution to EU is £8bn, why are we so scared of leaving the single market and hard Brexit? We could afford to give tax breaks or subsidise the tarrifs so that businesses are not made uncompetitive with tarrifs and still make a profit. I think there must be something stupid that I'm missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogstanley Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 5 minutes ago, murphy said: I haven't waded through 519 pages of this but I have a genuine and probably naive question regarding Brexit. If our exports to EU total £225bn and tarriffs are generally 2-3%, so we would pay £6bn, and our net contribution to EU is £8bn, why are we so scared of leaving the single market and hard Brexit? We could afford to give tax breaks or subsidise the tarrifs so that businesses are not made uncompetitive with tarrifs and still make a profit. I think there must be something stupid that I'm missing. What about imports? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 1 minute ago, Rogstanley said: What about imports? The tariffs if we imposed them are a tax payable to our govt, we'll gain £16 billion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogstanley Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 1 minute ago, Webbo said: The tariffs if we imposed them are a tax payable to our govt, we'll gain £16 billion. Still costs me more as a buyer though doesn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 2 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: Still costs me more as a buyer though doesn't it. Would if we imposed them, same as it costs us more as consumers imposing the EU' s external tariff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murphy Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 10 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: Still costs me more as a buyer though doesn't it. But we could get free trade deals with the rest of the world. Get oranges from Morocco rather than Seville. We could impose reciprocal tarriffs, which we should do to make the EU come round to free trade in the future, and discount them back to the importers in the form of subusidies or tax breaks. I just don't get the fear. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxxed Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, theessexfox said: That might hold a little more weight if there was any discussion in the run-up to elections about what our head of state does at the European Council, or which commissioner the PM appoints to the Council of the European Union and the role he/she fulfills. As it is, there is next to no salience on this issue at General Elections and thus this function of our executive goes almost totally unscrutinised. Yes, theoretically we have a degree of control over our representatives at the EU as a whole but Webbo's point is that our national executive is far more directly accountable to us and can be thrown out of government as a whole if they are unpopular enough. You know when we have elections and parties talk about what they're going to do if elected? Yes, that's the discussion. If they don't talk about things you care about you don't vote for them. If they are too vague you don't vote for them. The idea the EU is bad because it's not spoken about in general elections is madness. The EU has internally torn the Tory party apart. We even had a new party form that only talks about the EU. To argue the EU has no salience in British elections is crazy. And then to argue the EU is unaccountable is a double serving of crazy. We vote for British politicians. Those directly-voted-for British politicians then go to Brussels. Those directly-voted-for British politicians then make decisions on EU law in the European Council. We also vote for British politicians in the European elections. Those directly-voted-for British politicians then go to Brussels. Those directly-voted-for British politicians then make decisions on EU law in the European Parliament. We, again, vote for British politicians. They form a British government with a leader. This directly-elected British leader then goes to Brussels. This directly-elected British leader then agrees or disagrees to EU treaties. Pop quiz! Who is accountable?! How can these directly-elected-people be held accountable?! What national mechanism can be used for the above?! What directly-elected people could change EU law?! That we have elected people. And that they have agreed to things. And that they have convinced you they are not accountable? Hats off. Genius politicians at work. Edited 24 February 2018 by Foxxed 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogstanley Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 52 minutes ago, murphy said: But we could get free trade deals with the rest of the world. Get oranges from Morocco rather than Seville. We could impose reciprocal tarriffs, which we should do to make the EU come round to free trade in the future, and discount them back to the importers in the form of subusidies or tax breaks. I just don't get the fear. We already have free trade with Morocco via the EU, so if we don’t buy oranges from there already then it’s probably because they’re more expensive or of lower quality. So, assuming we quickly agree a free trade deal with Morocco, which is by no means guaranteed, we will still be worse off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 1 hour ago, Rogstanley said: Still costs me more as a buyer though doesn't it. Let’s give it to the NHS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 18 minutes ago, Strokes said: Let’s give it to the NHS. Good slogan, they should put that on a bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 8 hours ago, leicsmac said: I feel somewhat responsible for starting this whole lot off by referencing Ms Phillips article in the first place. No need to feel guilty, Mac. It's good to read opposing arguments, and to be aware of what your opponents are saying - whether it's good argument that you can learn from or disgracefully dishonest propaganda, as in this case. As you might have noticed, I enjoy a good argument, anyway - and will shut up soon, as I know that it alienates some people. Plus, as regards my involvement, I had decided to ignore the article until I saw a series of posts from Mr. Webster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogstanley Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Strokes said: Let’s give it to the NHS. That is a good idea. Also we could open ourselves up to the world by doing free trade deals with countries we already have free trade deals with so we can buy their more expensive manky oranges instead of buying cheaper better quality oranges from our neighbours. This really is a thrillingly brilliant idea. I’m excited for the future, me. Edited 24 February 2018 by Rogstanley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 6 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: That is a good idea. Also we could open ourselves up to the world by doing free trade deals with countries we already have free trade deals with so we can buy their more expensive manky oranges instead of buying cheaper better quality oranges from our neighbours. This really is a thrillingly brilliant idea. I’m excited for the future, me. Are they chlorinated oranges? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogstanley Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 4 minutes ago, Webbo said: Are they chlorinated oranges? Let’s hope so. What would be the point in taking back control if we can’t impose on our citizens expensive shit food? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 11 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: No need to feel guilty, Mac. It's good to read opposing arguments, and to be aware of what your opponents are saying - whether it's good argument that you can learn from or disgracefully dishonest propaganda, as in this case. As you might have noticed, I enjoy a good argument, anyway - and will shut up soon, as I know that it alienates some people. Plus, as regards my involvement, I had decided to ignore the article until I saw a series of posts from Mr. Webster. Do you know it's dishonest or think it's dishonest? Do you believe there are no academics out there who think that way? Do you want me to pretend to agree with you, will that make you happy? Such an over reaction to an article and the fact that I said it seemed fair. There are bullshit articles from the Guardian posted on here everyday and I don't sulk about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 2 hours ago, Webbo said: I would say that any criticism of remainder is a reaction to the blind hatred of brexiteers and the attempts to overturn the result by the remainders. People who feel that way about Leave are more likely to be in a position of power. We've not seen any reports of people who feel that backing remain would damage their career. If there had been it would have been enthusiastically reported in the Guardian and gleefully posted on here. Now I don't deny there are people on our side that are also OTT in their hate, but as I said, they're not usually in a position of power. We'd probably better wind down our dialogue soon before we alienate everyone, and will be off to match shortly. But.... - I accept your point about Remain supporters often being in higher positions (e.g. in academia, many business leaders etc.) but, by definition, there will be plenty of Remain voters who work in offices, factories and other workplaces where Leave is the dominant position. Some of them may feel at least as vulnerable as Leave-supporting academics, both as regards their jobs/careers and even their physical safety - I note that you haven't withdrawn your support for Melanie Phillips' article or your claim that it only relates to academics, despite my detailed challenges to your views. I'll leave it there. - I have already condemned all unfair criticism of Brexiteers (e.g. "they're all racist imbeciles") and certainly any blind hatred.... Who started it? Certainly, there was some contempt from some (and only some) Remain voters early on. But the aggression from Brexit voters has also been around a long time: e.g. Jo Cox, Gina Miller, the attacks on immigrants after the vote (all extreme, untypical cases, I know, but still real) - As for Remainers seeking to "overturn" the result, so long as they do that democratically that is their right, surely? Farage and the Tory Eurosceptics spent decades seeking to "overturn" the 1970s referendum to remain EEC/EU members. They were perfectly entitled to do that, in my view - and eventually succeeded. Remainers have the same democratic right - to fight Hard Brexit (for which there is no mandate, just a Tory political preference) and to use democratic processes to get the vote reversed. Personally, I don't support having another referendum unless (a) the deal negotiated is rubbish; and (b) there's a sea change in public opinion, but others are entitled to campaign for that. Gina Miller only took legal action to ensure that the Article 50 process went before parliament - which the Brexit lobby anti-democratically opposed. Another case was brought to assert the right of the UK to reverse our Article 50 notice - perfectly democratic, again, as it would only matter if parliament/govt voted for that. Football time! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 (edited) Just time to post this magnificent demolition of Tory smears against "Corbyn the commie spy" by Andrew Neil: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2018/feb/21/bbcs-andrew-neil-challenges-minister-to-defend-corbyn-spy-smears-video And another by Prescott: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/furious-john-prescott-attacks-tory-12074008 Not sure politically if it's a good idea for Corbyn to sue for libel as it might be a distraction - but he certainly has a case, it seems. Sorry, this Rog post seems to have got inserted and I cannot get rid of it! Football time! Edited 24 February 2018 by Alf Bentley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogstanley Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 7 minutes ago, Webbo said: Do you know it's dishonest or think it's dishonest? Do you believe there are no academics out there who think that way? Do you want me to pretend to agree with you, will that make you happy? Such an over reaction to an article and the fact that I said it seemed fair. There are bullshit articles from the Guardian posted on here everyday and I don't sulk about it. Why don’t you try and challenge the content of those guardian articles like Alf did with yours then? Well, when I say challenge the content, what Alf actually did was tear you and your article to shreds with surgical precision, to such an extent that I even started to feel a bit bad for you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 9 minutes ago, Webbo said: Do you know it's dishonest or think it's dishonest? Do you believe there are no academics out there who think that way? Do you want me to pretend to agree with you, will that make you happy? Such an over reaction to an article and the fact that I said it seemed fair. There are bullshit articles from the Guardian posted on here everyday and I don't sulk about it. I've explained my view at length - and you've chosen not to answer my challenges, as is your right. No sulking, no over-reaction, no expectations of you, just the calm expression of my views.... Must go now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 7 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: Why don’t you try and challenge the content of those guardian articles like Alf did with yours then? Well, when I say challenge the content, what Alf actually did was tear you and your article to shreds with surgical precision, to such an extent that I even started to feel a bit bad for you. Because it's boring. Just saying it's propaganda isn't surgically tearing an article apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 24 February 2018 Share Posted 24 February 2018 5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: I've explained my view at length - and you've chosen not to answer my challenges, as is your right. No sulking, no over-reaction, no expectations of you, just the calm expression of my views.... Must go now! Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I haven't answered them. I believe it, you don't, lets leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts