Search results

That's one side of the discussion. +1 for Food standards will be lowered. https://deframedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/10/08/protecting-our-high-food-standards/ https://www.just-food.com/news/uk-says-food-standards-will-be-upheld-in-any-trade-deal-with-us_id144536.aspx The other side of the discussion...

It wasn't much of a point worth responding to. I don't know the future. Good point. I said they won't because so far there has been no indication, at all, that they will. If you want to argue that they will (which everyone on here is arguing - infact everyone is arguing that they have by virue...

This thread hasn't been much of a discussion, it's been everyone agreeing how evil the government is for "removing safeguards", which they haven't, attacking anyone who points out that they haven't, and continuing to ignore the fact that they haven't.

Nice example of what I was talking about. Everyone on here is determined to play the man and not the ball. There is no difference between mocking someone because they went to public school and mocking someone because they didn't. You are no better than the people you would criticize. Kids go...

Rejecting the implication that you need to be forced to do something, is not the same as trying to prove that you don't.

This place is pretty toxic at times isn't it. Sorry I don't agree with your political hatred. I've just been trying to point out that protections exist, they have not been removed, despite the title of this thread. There is, so far, no indication that they will be removed There was only the...

I'm saying, wait until they lower standards before you accuse them of wanting to lower standards. They haven't, yet this is being touted as proof that their commitment not to is a lie. So much twisting of reality on here it's unreal. They rejected the amendment. They still contend that...

To score political points, grandstand, and no doubt in some cases, because they wrongly believe it's neccessary. It will prove to have not been neccessary, but of course this will all be forgotten by then won't it.

Not my point though was it. Others argue otherwise. Others would be minded to table such an amendment (although I am using an extreme example to help illustrate the point, a) Labour would reject the amendment, b) that's not because they would be in favor of doing the opposite).

You are twisting my words. They aren't trying to prove they don't need to be forced. The amendment is trying to imply that they do need to be forced.

That is exactly what I am saying, yes. Look at the original post in this thread: "I was of the impression this would never happen" He was under the impression that food standards wouldn't be lowered. They haven't been. The thread just continues in that vein. This thread is evidence that people...

Not to mention the short term political capital of being able to play to the ignorance of the crowd by arguing, dishonestly, that food standards have been compromised, and that this is now proof that the government does not intend/never intended to maintain them.

They aren't trying to prove something, they are rejecting what is being implied. This is all (very sadly) modern politics 101. If you are struggling to understand this, let's use another example. We have a Labour government in power. The opposition, and anyone else who doesn't like (or even...

That's a nice picture and everything, but you said: Sounds to me like you wrongly thought that the government stripped away some kind of protection. They didn't. An attempt to change the law was made, and rejected. The law remains the same, our food standards are protected by the existing...

Actually the only danger there is of food standards being lowered is if the WTO uphold an appeal against them. An appeal we have already demonstrated that we would intend to fight.

They didn't remove any law. They just didn't add a new one.

Surely you can understand what I am saying. You don't need to be instructed not to beat your wife. Someone instructing you not to beat your wife implies that they believe that you otherwise would. You agreeing not beat your wife implies that you believe you otherwise would. Someone demanding...

It's like I said, in my opinion it was for the most part a "do not beat your wife" bill. It passes, "look, he had to be forced not to beat his wife!", "Thanks to me, his wife is safe!" It fails, "look, he wants to beat his wife!", "I tried to save his wife, I care about her, he obviously...

The original post in this thread is a quote from Caroline Lucas, in which she implies that we have compromised on our environmental protections, animal welfare or food standards, and thus the promise not to has been broken. This is...a lie. That hasn't happened. Peoples conclusions, if they...

So, let's recap. You all believe that chlorine washed chicken and hormone-treated beef should be banned in the UK. Chlorine washed chicken and hormone-treated beef has been banned in the UK. Chlorine washed chicken and hormone-treated beef continues to be banned in the UK. Chlorine washed...