Amazer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2008
- Messages
- 1,711
- Status
How can you be so sure there will be a transition phase? There is still no agreement on the principle of a transition phase, its contents and its duration. And only 10 months left to get there...
Furthermore a transition phase means an extension of the two years delay provided by Article 50 of the Treaty. To be implemented such an extension needs the unanimous agreement of all others 27 Member States. How can you be so sure this agreement will be reached?
Wrong. Even when you don't know exactly what the future will bring, you still prepare for a range of likely outcomes. This is the normal process of being alive: the future is ALWAYS uncertain.
How can you be sure the sky won't fall tomorrow?
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Because it has fallen already. Enjoy your chlorinated chicken.
We've had chlorinated tap water for ever. Why are people so concerned about chicken? What have been the effects on millions of American chicken eaters, other than perhaps a reduction in the occurrence of salmonella and other food poisoning incidents?
Last edited:
"There have also been reports, including undercover video evidence by the Humane Society of the United States, of both inhumane and unsanitary practices being carried out within poultry houses due to a lack of animal welfare regulation.
...
Although there are some benefits to this chlorine washing, there are concerns about it. Some US abattoirs and processing plants rely heavily on chlorination because their other hygiene standards are so poor that they would be illegal in Europe. The process is also very good at removing odours and surface slime, meaning the meat can be passed off as fresh for much longer than it should be."
Link. Hope that helps
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Odd claim, given WHO found 4-5 times higher rate of salmonella infection in the US.
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/...d=1389D6EA253A0DE336D322A62D8119A8?sequence=1
Strawberry
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 2,151
The concerns about chlorinated chicken are mainly about animal welfare rather than human health. The chlorination process is used to cover up a multitude of sins during the animal's life time, which is why the EU banned it.
You know that only extends it 18 months at the most? We should still be up to our eyes in the required work that needs to happen?
And there is no evidence the current government is following your wisdom.
Probably because all it does is stop you being able to test for the presence of the dangerous bacteria:
Chicken safety fear as chlorine washing fails bacteria tests
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...steria?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Lothian
should be banned
You have not addressed the contradiction in your argument. On one hand you say that countries who don't have a special relationship with the EU get on fine. You then say we can negotiate a special relationship.
Which is it to be. Do we ditch the EU. I understand you consider we should not pay them the money we agreed to pay, so I guess you support this approach. We would lose all the concessions we have with the EU including licences to drive lorry, trade in financial and other services , we would have hard borders and full tariffs; or do you want to keep the free trade and concessions we currently have?
If the latter lets assume we currently pay £350m a week.
So, simple question, how much a week would you offer for the soft brexit knowing the alternative is a hard one?
Personaly I would go up to about $450m a week
Last edited:
Francesca R
Girl
Can we take that out of the NHS budget?
No. Undertakings don't do that because this is extremely expensive. They need to have clear view on what is going in advance to be able to take the measures that must be prepared.
They cannot work on whole range of possible outcomes, and certainly once you are so close to the deadline.
Lothian
should be banned
No, a boost to the economy knowing we
Are effectively staying as we are; strengthening the pound and a tax rise funded subsidiary which is cheaper than the amount we would lose if we had a hard brexit.
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
How can the Freight Transport Association and the logistics industry "start working on new arrangements" when the government has been unable to clarify what conditions will be? What are they supposed to do?
Last edited:
Buy crystal balls or hire fortune tellers in order to better guess what will happen on 29 April 2019...
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 6,030
It's nice to know there are non-EU countries that do that well.
Lets see.
The US, China, Russia, Canada and India all have vast amounts of natural resources they can use to trade. The UK?
The South American nations (those not on the verge of bankruptcy) tow the line of the US without any influence on those decisions and have no real way to protect themselves from policies like Trump is influencing now.
Most of Africa is not doing that well, so we can ignore those.
The middle east sits on lots of oil and / or lives off US subsidies.
South east Asia is in a similar situation as the South american countries but follows China's wishes.
The central Asian republics (those that have a real economy at all) follow either Russia or India.
The Central European countries joined the EU to be able to get out of Russia's sphere of influence and now can actually influence the decisions in the EU.
That leaves a few small European nations, who, as has been pointed out repeatedly, still have to follow EU regulations if they want to trade, but have no actual influence on the actual regulations.
Now lets look at the UK. It's economy is nowhere near strong enough to compete with the major powers or the EU, so it will always negotiate from the weaker position.
The vast majority of it's trade and economy is tied to the EU so if it wants that to continue then it will have to abide by those rules.
The Brexit hope of Trump by now should be gone as it is clear that Trump has no intention to favour the UK in any way whatsoever.
But maybe I have missed something, what medium level economy of a relatively smallish country without abundant natural resources and in a strategically unimportant position is capable of dictating terms to economically more powerful blocs?
Lets see.
The US, China, Russia, Canada and India all have vast amounts of natural resources they can use to trade. The UK?
The South American nations (those not on the verge of bankruptcy) tow the line of the US without any influence on those decisions and have no real way to protect themselves from policies like Trump is influencing now.
Most of Africa is not doing that well, so we can ignore those.
The middle east sits on lots of oil and / or lives off US subsidies.
South east Asia is in a similar situation as the South american countries but follows China's wishes.
The central Asian republics (those that have a real economy at all) follow either Russia or India.
The Central European countries joined the EU to be able to get out of Russia's sphere of influence and now can actually influence the decisions in the EU.
That leaves a few small European nations, who, as has been pointed out repeatedly, still have to follow EU regulations if they want to trade, but have no actual influence on the actual regulations.
Now lets look at the UK. It's economy is nowhere near strong enough to compete with the major powers or the EU, so it will always negotiate from the weaker position.
The vast majority of it's trade and economy is tied to the EU so if it wants that to continue then it will have to abide by those rules.
The Brexit hope of Trump by now should be gone as it is clear that Trump has no intention to favour the UK in any way whatsoever.
But maybe I have missed something, what medium level economy of a relatively smallish country without abundant natural resources and in a strategically unimportant position is capable of dictating terms to economically more powerful blocs?
- Status