Fox Ulike Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 10 minutes ago, MattP said: I think you are trolling bit I'll answer anyway breifly. No jurisdiction of the ECJ gives a sovereign nation full control of it's courts, something every country should aspire to as to set out the boundaries and rules of its society, let alone the birthpace of Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus. Independent trade is just that, our government can be responsible for it and we can then judge them accordingly, if they fcuk it up on them, I'd much rather that than be veteod by Wallonia as the Canadian deal was. Removal of tariffs should be obvious, it helps the poorest in our society and the poorest in others, I have no interest in making those at the bottom pay more for their goods to protect people in richer nations. But yeah, chickens, bluey and Rule Britannia innit. I guess I'm just looking for practical examples of what difference these changes will actually make. Chickens and lamb is what I've got. We'll still have justice courts. We'll still have trade. And we're removing some tarfiffs on non-EU goods and will be imposing others on EU goods. Swings and roundabouts. How will any of this affect your life?
Fox Ulike Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 13 minutes ago, MattP said: The Tariffs are unfair, we don't have trade deals with African farmers. Do you think it's fair we are forced to put tariffs on those farmers to protect wealthier Europeans? Probably not. However, why didn't we do a Wallonia and veto the deal? We've not been forced into it. We've agreed to do it. When we're 'free', why would we do anything but seek to impose similar trade terms as those we agreed to as part of the EU? 1
Guest Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 The answer to the question about feeding the poor is to solve the issue of poverty in the world 's 6th richest economy, not to keep inequality but reduce the poor's costs by removing regulations which protect animal and human health. Difference between right and left laid bare.
Guest MattP Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: I guess I'm just looking for practical examples of what difference these changes will actually make. Chickens and lamb is what I've got. We'll still have justice courts. We'll still have trade. And we're removing some tarfiffs on non-EU goods and will be imposing others on EU goods. Swings and roundabouts. How will any of this affect your life? Well removing tariffs makes good cheaper, if that happens I'll have more money to spend. That's a pretty big effect on life for most people. Still having justice courts? I can't believe anyone can have such a insouciant attitude towards something so important to a country, I suppose that's another massive difference between the two sides in this debate. To some it's sacrosanct, to some it's blase. 10 minutes ago, toddybad said: The answer to the question about feeding the poor is to solve the issue of poverty in the world 's 6th richest economy, not to keep inequality but reduce the poor's costs by removing regulations which protect animal and human health. Difference between right and left laid bare. Even for you this is simplistic waffle. Only you could try and claim the moral highground for the left whilst making life more difficult for the poor. No one has talked about removing regulation or rights at all, we have spoken about removing tariffs, completely different things. "Not to keep inequality"- What absolutely drivel, what does that even mean? Edited 15 February 2018 by MattP
Rogstanley Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 (edited) So to summarise the last few pages then, brexit is good because we might be able to pay marginally less production cost for a chicken that is of significantly lower quality to what we are used to, and has been transported thousands of unnecessary miles adding age to the dead meat, pollution to the atmosphere and additional transport costs which may in fact make the chicken more expensive. Equally advantageous is the concept of being able to do trade deals with poorer countries whereby the small percentage of reduced tariff probably won't outweigh additional transport costs but folks, listen, we don't care, we just want to give some African farmers a chance to sell more veg. That's what brexit is about, genuinely. Brexiters are warm, compassionate people who just want to give some African farmers a bit more of a chance in life by allowing them to sell us inferior quality products for a price that may or may not be marginally cheaper. It's all so well thought out and logical and doesn't at all come across like they are spouting absolute bollocks to try and cover up the real reasons why they voted brexit. Edited 15 February 2018 by Rogstanley 4
Buce Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 1 hour ago, MattP said: Food does trigger people these days, I told a Vegan they looked like an unhealthy twig on Saturday and they went mental at me, then two hours later they came back to me after I'd forgotten all about it and started showing me a table of how they actually get more protein than I do. Really was weird. Pretty rude to be commenting on someone's appearance, tbh. 1
Fox Ulike Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 12 minutes ago, toddybad said: The answer to the question about feeding the poor is to solve the issue of poverty in the world 's 6th richest economy, not to keep inequality but reduce the poor's costs by removing regulations which protect animal and human health. Difference between right and left laid bare. Very good point. "Let them eat chlorinated chicken" is the Marie-antionette-ism for the twenty-first century
Captain... Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 (edited) This thread is like a comfy safety blanket, if I ever feel lost in the world I can pop in here and ground myself on seeing the same people have the same argument over and over again. Now I'm realigned I'll drop a couple of truth bombs. The chlorine chicken issue is still massively misunderstood, the objection to it is not that chlorine is bad and that eating chlorine washed chicken will kill you. It won't we swim in chlorine, and swallow plenty along with copious amounts of wee and poo particles, that the chlorine helps to destroy the bacteria of before we swallow it. We get it in our eyes and all round our most sensitive parts to no ill effect. The issue is that by allowing chicken to be chlorine washed after being slaughtered allows the breeding, rearing, slaughter and preparation process to be much less sanitary and corners can be cut to speed up the process/make it cheaper. Chlorine washing is just one example of where there isn't the same level of food regulation outside the EU. It comes down to if we want to sanction poorer food practices because they are cheaper to agree a trade deal with the US. The issue then becomes if we are allowing cheaper food into our markets due to poorer food hygiene practices then UK farmers will want to be able to compete on the same level as the US and other countries and demand that regulations be relaxed so they can chlorine wash their chickens and slaughter diseased chickens and keep them in less sanitary environments. But by doing that our produce will subsequently be banned from entering the EU market, still our biggest and closest trading partner, so we will either put our farmers out of business by flooding the market with cheaper produce from countries with fewer regulations, or we will de-regulate our market to match the US/other trading countries and thus deny our farmers entry into a huge market. By keeping EU standards we can still export our produce to other non EU countries as well as the EU as well is keeping it competitive in our domestic market. Personally it is a no from me, anyone disagree? Edited 15 February 2018 by Captain... 4
Guest Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 3 minutes ago, Captain... said: This thread is like a comfy safety blanket, if I ever feel lost in the world I can pop in here and ground myself on seeing the same people have the same argument over and over again. Now I'm realigned I'll drop a couple of truth bombs. The chlorine chicken issue is still massively misunderstood, the objection to it is not the chlorine is bad and that eating chlorine washed chicken will kill you. It won't we swim in chlorine, and swallow plenty along with copious amounts of wee and poo particles that the chlorine helps to destroy the bacteria of before we swallow it. We get it in our eyes and all round our most sensitive parts to no ill effect. The issue is that by allowing chicken to be chlorine washed after being slaughtered means that the breeding, rearing, slaughter and preparation process can be much less sanitary and they can cut corners to speed up the process/make it cheaper. Chlorine washing is just one example of where there isn't the same level of food regulation outside the EU. It comes down to if we want to sanction poorer food practices because they are cheaper to agree a trade deal with the US. The issue then becomes if we are allowing cheaper food into our markets due to poorer food hygiene practices then UK farmers will want to be able to compete on the same level as the US and other countries and demand that regulations be relaxed so they can chlorine wash chickens and slaughter diseased chickens and keep them in less sanitary environments. But by doing that our produce will subsequently be banned from entering the EU market, still our biggest and closest trading partner, so we will either put our farmers out of business by flooding the market with cheaper produce from countries with fewer regulations, or we will de-regulate our market to match the US/other trading countries and thus deny our farmers entry into a huge market. By keeping EU standards we can still export our produce to other non EU countries as well as the EU as well is keeping it competitive in our domestic market. Personally it is a no from me, anyone disagree? Nail on head.
Guest MattP Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 8 minutes ago, Buce said: Pretty rude to be commenting on someone's appearance, tbh. It was said in jest as response to a mild insult thrown at me. Didn't come across the best on here reading it back.
Buce Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 1 hour ago, Strokes said: I don’t get why people care about the animals welfare before they kill and eat it, sure you want the animal to be healthy but what else? For the same reason that you (presumably) treat your dog well. It's a question of doing what is right.
Fox Ulike Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 12 minutes ago, MattP said: Well removing tariffs makes good cheaper, if that happens I'll have more money to spend. That's a pretty big effect on life for most people. Still having justice courts? I can't believe anyone can have such a insouciant attitude towards something so important to a country, I suppose that's another massive difference between the two sides in this debate. To some it's sacrosanct, to some it's blase. Even for you this is simplistic waffle. Only you could try and claim the moral highground for the left whilst making life more difficult for the poor. No one has talked about removing regulation or rights at all, we have spoken about removing tariffs, completely different things. "Not to keep inequality"- What absolutely drivel, what does that even mean? What about everyone else who isn't you? People who can keep well-paid jobs through Brexit will be better off I guess. Will this be true for most people? In terms of ECJ. Potato potarto. All I can see is that you're removing an Appeals Court. So they'll be less justice not more. You're right though, this doesn't actually bother me. I don't believe that British people are instrinsically better at administering justice than Belguins or Spanish would be. Will this affect you? Do you spend much time up in court?
Buce Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 3 minutes ago, MattP said: It was said in jest as response to a mild insult thrown at me. Didn't come across the best on here reading it back. Fair enough. My missus is a vegan so I'm well aware of how rabidly they proselytize sometimes.
Guest MattP Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 2 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: I don't believe that British people are instrinsically better at administering justice than Belguins or Spanish would be. Will this affect you? Spain was a really bad example for you to use on that point given what has happened over the last few months wasn't it?
Fox Ulike Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 1 minute ago, MattP said: Spain was a really bad example for you to use on that point given what has happened over the last few months wasn't it? I don't attribute any failings of the Spanish judicial system to racial characteristics of Spanish people, so no. It wasn't. Do you think that the Brits are somehow better than the Spanish when it comes to justice?! I would be interested to know how you came to this conclusion.
Guest MattP Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 Just now, Fox Ulike said: I don't attribute any failings of the Spanish judicial system to racial characteristics of Spanish people, so no. It wasn't. Do you think that the Brits are somehow better than the Spanish when it comes to justice?! I would be interested to know how you came to this conclusion. What are you going on about? I'm talking about the way the Spanish police and courts handled the Catalonian independence campaign and referendum. You realise there are Spanish politicians currently hiding in Belgium because they want to throw them in prison?
Fox Ulike Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 Just now, MattP said: What are you going on about? I'm talking about the way the Spanish police and courts handled the Catalonian independence campaign and referendum. You realise there are Spanish politicians currently hiding in Belgium because they want to throw them in prison? Are you going to answer my post about Brexit, or just deflect onto the Catalonia crisis? This is why we never get any further than chicken.
Guest MattP Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said: Are you going to answer my post about Brexit, or just deflect onto the Catalonia crisis? This is why we never get any further than chicken. Unbelievable
Fox Ulike Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 1 minute ago, MattP said: Unbelievable That's a no then is it. "Cheap Chicken and no Spanish judges." They should of put that on the side of the bus.
Strokes Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 17 minutes ago, Buce said: For the same reason that you (presumably) treat your dog well. It's a question of doing what is right. I’m not planning on eating my dog. It’s a bit sadistic to want them to be enjoying life before you kill them.
Buce Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 1 minute ago, Strokes said: I’m not planning on eating my dog. It’s a bit sadistic to want them to be enjoying life before you kill them. What an odd thing to say. Sadistic is treating them badly before killing them.
Strokes Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 9 minutes ago, Buce said: What an odd thing to say. Sadistic is treating them badly before killing them. If I eat an animal that was having a shit life, it feels like I’ve helped put it out of its misery. If It was skipping through the meadows bleating out a tune that could sound similar to it’s a wonderful life. I might feel pretty bad about it. 1
Buce Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 8 minutes ago, Strokes said: If I eat an animal that was having a shit life, it feels like I’ve helped put it out of its misery. Alternatively, one could argue that you are perpetuating cruel farming practices by giving them no incentive to treat animals with more compassion. 2
Guest Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 (edited) 56 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: That's a no then is it. "Cheap Chicken and no Spanish judges." They should of put that on the side of the bus. Between them captain and rog have destroyed his arguments so you'll get no sense from him from this point forward. Edited 15 February 2018 by Guest
ajthefox Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 1 hour ago, Strokes said: If I eat an animal that was having a shit life, it feels like I’ve helped put it out of its misery. If It was skipping through the meadows bleating out a tune that could sound similar to it’s a wonderful life. I might feel pretty bad about it. That is some bizarre logic going on there, Strokes. It's bred specifically so you can eat it, why not at least let it have a half decent life? The only real favour you can do is not be the one eating the fvcker. You don't really believe you're doing the animal a favour by eating it, do you?
Recommended Posts