[Politics] Safeguards on food standards have been removed.

[Randy McNob]

O' Brien at 09.50 mins in was just badgering him and refusing to listen and trying to put words in in his mouth.... the worst kind of interviewer.
I am not a political person but the sensational nature of this thread made me do some checking, and I concur wth the comments of dingodan above.

The one thing these politicians are good at is bullshit and spin and they generally only talk to yes men like Ferrari. I personally prefer these shysters to be held to account for their nonsense rather than the usual Murdoch paid mob blowing smoke up their backsides

 

[dingodan]

I would have no problem agreeing to continue to not beat my wife, I dont know why you would find that hard to agree to?

They have no problem saying repeatedly that they will not beat their wives though, it is illegal to beat their wives now they say, they just dont want to promise that wont make it legal to beat their wives if a trade deal requires it.

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, and you agreeing not to beat your wife will forever be held up as the reason why it didn't happen.

The government are fully committed to maintaining the high food standards that we have, and they intend to do it without having their hands tied, without others being able to say, ad infinitum, that the reason food standards were maintained was bacause the government were forced to maintain them by law, rather than because they said they would maintain them and they meant it.

 

[WATFORD zero]

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, and you agreeing not to beat your wife will forever be held up as the reason why it didn't happen.

The government are fully committed to maintaining the high food standards that we have, and they intend to do it without having their hands tied, without others being able to say, ad infinitum, that the reason food standards were maintained was bacause the government were forced to maintain them by law, rather than because they said they would maintain them and they meant it.

So, remove the law, so they prove that they are doing it because they are principled and honest. And they say satire is dead

That is a sterling bid for favourite satirist on NSC

 

[Randy McNob]

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, and you agreeing not to beat your wife will forever be held up as the reason why it didn't happen.

The government are fully committed to maintaining the high food standards that we have, and they intend to do it without having their hands tied, without others being able to say, ad infinitum, that the reason food standards were maintained was bacause the government were forced to maintain them by law, rather than because they said they would maintain them and they meant it.

So Goverment ministers and yourself are right but food experts are wrong?

Just like Rees-Mogg knows more about the WTO then the head of the WTO, and more about cars than the head of JLR

 

[Is it PotG?]

2 posts in a row starting 'So'.

What has this country become?

 

[dingodan]

So, remove the law, so they can do it because they are principled and honest. And they say satire is dead

That is a sterling bid for favourite satirist on NSC

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

 

[Is it PotG?]

That is a sterling bid for favourite satirist on NSC

Nobody, NOBODY can take your crown.

 

[dingodan]

So Goverment ministers and yourself are right but food experts are wrong?

Just like Rees-Mogg knows more about the WTO then the head of the WTO, and more about cars than the head of JLR

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.

 

[WATFORD zero]

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

 

[WATFORD zero]

2 posts in a row starting 'So'.

What has this country become?

Straight to the crux again

 

[Stat Brother]

So, remove the law, so they prove that they are doing it because they are principled and honest. And they say satire is dead

That is a sterling bid for favourite satirist on NSC

I genuinely wish I believed in this government (or Corbyn's for that matter) 10% of what others do.

 

[dingodan]

View attachment 129468

That's a nice picture and everything, but you said:

So, remove the law, so they prove that they are doing it because they are principled and honest. And they say satire is dead

That is a sterling bid for favourite satirist on NSC

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 legal framework. This amendment wasn't about adding any neccessary legal protection, it was about making a point. "We need to force you not to lower food standards in any trade deal". The governments answer in rejecting the amendment was, "No, you don't".

Rejecting the amendment had nothing to do with wanting to lower food standards, it had to do with rejecting the underlying assumption the amendment was trying to make.

 

[WATFORD zero]

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, and you agreeing not to beat your wife will forever be held up as the reason why it didn't happen.

The government are fully committed to maintaining the high food standards that we have, and they intend to do it without having their hands tied, without others being able to say, ad infinitum, that the reason food standards were maintained was bacause the government were forced to maintain them by law, rather than because they said they would maintain them and they meant it.

So, don't change the law, so they can prove that they are doing it because they are principled and honest. And they say satire is dead

That is a sterling bid for favourite satirist on NSC

Happy now ?

Exactly the same point stands

It's almost like [MENTION=21401]pastafarian[/MENTION] has a daytime account

 

[A1X]

I genuinely wish I believed in this government (or Corbyn's for that matter) 10% of what others do.

Same. Life must be so easy if you never question our lords and masters.

 

[dingodan]

Happy now ?

Exactly the same point stands

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 sincerely doesn't trust) the existing Labour government, propose an amendment to the Education bill.

An amendment to, "Forbid the teaching of radical left wing Marxism to primary school children".

Do you expect the Labour government to say they support the amendment? No. (They reject the implication)

Do you expect that this would be because they intend to have radical left wing Marxism taught to primary school children? No. (Again, they reject the implication)

What happens if the amendment passes? The opposition, probably for years to come, "It was only thanks to our bill that the government were prevented from..."

What happens if the amendment fails? The opposition, probably for years to come, "This government REJECTED the proposal to forbid...This proves that..."

Like I said, this is sadly how politics functions today. The government would have had to be naive in the extreme to support the amendment, and they aren't so they didn't. But that says absolutely nothing about their intentions.

 

[Randy McNob]

Same. Life must be so easy if you never question our lords and masters.

yes, we're talking about people who would defraud the public purse for a 3p bath plug

They only have our best interests at heart !

 

[zefarelly]

The government are fully committed to maintaining the high food standards that we have, and they intend to do it without having their hands tied, without others being able to say, ad infinitum, that the reason food standards were maintained was bacause the government were forced to maintain them by law, rather than because they said they would maintain them and they meant it.

I and a majority of people do not believe the governement are in the slightest bit commited to maintaining high food standards, despite what they have said , and with very good reason, they are proven habitual liars.

The bill could have protected us all from the possibility of lowering standards via the back door, which I'd wager is exactly what will happen after a hard brexit and a bendover and shaft me meeting with the Yanks.

 

[highflyer]

I genuinely wish I believed in this government (or Corbyn's for that matter) 10% of what others do.

You seem like a sensible chap. Please don't fall into the false equivalence 'all as bad as each other' trap that has been set.

Corbyn, and those around him had many faults. You may not have agreed with their policies or strategy.

But they did not lie deliberately, knowingly and on an industrial scale, as the current government did to win the election. And as they have carried on doing so ever since (including on defending food standards, as has now been exposed).

https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/10/inve...ry-ads-misleading-compared-0-labour-11651802/

 

[Stat Brother]

You seem like a sensible chap. Please don't fall into the false equivalence 'all as bad as each other' trap that has been set.

Corbyn, and those around him had many faults. You may not have agreed with their policies or strategy.

But they did not lie deliberately, knowingly and on an industrial scale, as the current government did to win the election. And as they have carried on doing so ever since (including on defending food standards, as has now been exposed).

https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/10/inve...ry-ads-misleading-compared-0-labour-11651802/

Who are 'Full Fact' you may ask? Are they politically motivated Labour flunkeys as the Spectator claims?

Well, no not really:

As always, this election we relied on expert, independent organisations to help us address the key issues. We’re very grateful to the Institute for Government, the Institute of Fiscal Studies, UK in a Changing Europe, Migration Observatory, the Nuffield Trust, the Health Foundation, the Sutton Trust and Harry Sullivan, a barrister at Goldsmith Chambers, for their time and support.

We are also grateful for the House of Commons Library, the House of Lords and the Office for National Statistics for sending us secondees.

The only positive I feel would have come from Mr Corbyn's government was the chance their incompetence would at least be well meaning!


I do have higher hopes for Mr Starmer.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I and a majority of people do not believe the governement are in the slightest bit commited to maintaining high food standards, despite what they have said , and with very good reason, they are proven habitual liars.

The bill could have protected us all from the possibility of lowering standards via the back door, which I'd wager is exactly what will happen after a hard brexit and a bendover and shaft me meeting with the Yanks.

Nail. Head.