Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
finneh said:
I'm not sure why you think we wouldn't have the information given that we have the most vociferous journalists in the world. Again though harmful produce would be banned..
Click to expand...

You’re suggesting journalists would let me know if my local sandwich shop or curry house used chlorinated chicken?
 
EwanI Ted said:
You’re suggesting journalists would let me know if my local sandwich shop or curry house used chlorinated chicken?
Click to expand...

No... I'm suggesting if chlorinated chicken were harmful journalists, scientists and officials would find out and it would be banned.

If it was absolutely fine but tasted worse then that's down to capitalism to decide whether the saving is worth the taste.
 
finneh said:
No... I'm suggesting if chlorinated chicken were harmful journalists, scientists and officials would find out and it would be banned.

If it was absolutely fine but tasted worse then that's down to capitalism to decide whether the saving is worth the taste.
Click to expand...

It currently is in the EU, due to those scientists, officials and journalists.
 
finneh said:
No... I'm suggesting if chlorinated chicken were harmful journalists, scientists and officials would find out and it would be banned.

If it was absolutely fine but tasted worse then that's down to capitalism to decide whether the saving is worth the taste.
Click to expand...

As it was by the EU in 1997

Australia and the EU only allow chlorine washing of food in a solution with a max concentration of 10ppm. The US allows up to five times that and the only reason you would allow that is to compensate for appaling hygiene so that you don't have constant salmonella outbreaks.
 
Last edited:
finneh said:
No... I'm suggesting if chlorinated chicken were harmful journalists, scientists and officials would find out and it would be banned.

If it was absolutely fine but tasted worse then that's down to capitalism to decide whether the saving is worth the taste.
Click to expand...

You’ve still yet to explain how the public get to decide whether to buy it or not. I walk into Tescos, buy a chicken sarnie, how do I know if it’s chlorinated chicken or not?
 
EwanI Ted said:
You’ve still yet to explain how the public get to decide whether to buy it or not. I walk into Tescos, buy a chicken sarnie, how do I know if it’s chlorinated chicken or not?
Click to expand...

Stop eating meat. Get healthy. Stop destroying the planet. Stop torturing animals. Stick it to Trump.

Everyone's happy except for the meat Nazis.
 
finneh said:
If it gives them an extra few quid a week to make ends meet then I'd say it's cruel to artificially inflate the cost to make them poorer. Whilst at the same time potentially providing commercial prospects to a much poorer country and therefore dragging their population our of poverty. Seems like a win all round.


The logical conclusion to your argument is that the UK should set tariffs of 1000% on all products for every country. This way we'll manufacture everything ourselves so will have a booming steel industry, booming car industry etc.

That's nonsense of course. Setting tariff barriers to protect a countries own inefficient industry is almost conclusively proven to be counter productive to the wealth of a country as a whole. It's why Trump is an idiot.

Creating artificial industries with protectionist barriers merely delays the inevitable. If the UK put 1000% on all cars worldwide it wouldn't make the UK a haven for car manufacturing... It'd make the population forced into buying shitty, expensive cars. A few decades later even at 1000% tariffs we'd be better of buying from overseas, then do you increase the tariffs further?

Some inefficient industries would fail, others would thrive with increased competition, invest in greater efficiencies and end up selling their viable products across the world. The ones that would thrive would be high skilled manufactured/engineering as well as skilled services etc that couldn't be copied by an African startup. Far better paid of course than picking fruit.
Click to expand...
The chlorination of chicken is a headline but it isn't necessary the core problem. The issue is that using chlorination is a crude way to control contamination, as opposed to cleaner production through the entire chain. It is bit like a heavy dose of Lynx to hide smells rather than shower. The EU would rather the whole process was cleaner.
 
Last edited:
Don’t see, beyond the scary title, what the fuss with chlorinated chicken is. There’s plenty of really shit, cheap chicken on the market already. A quick scan of the ingredients tells you what rubbish is in it.
You want better chicken? By some better quality. You want a cheap shop? By the cheap shit
 
owlo said:
My god... You don't even deserve another cat.

It was nothing to do with Scottish law or English law being different. They aren't. They are the same. Only the judges were different.With me so far?

Different courts disagree all the time. It's part of the system.

It's ROUTINE for an issue challenging the government to go to at least the Court of Appeal stage, and often to the Supreme Court.

It's also ROUTINE for different courts, even within England to disagree with each other.

We've literally been through this exact conversation several times, and you keep saying 'it's very complicated' and mentioning Criminal Law in Scotland or something. It's not. It's simple.
Click to expand...

Scottish law and English law are not the same. If they were there would be no need for the distinction...
 
Unrelated, on the school run this morning I saw three cats dragging a pigeon into the bushes and mangling it. Made me think of this thread @Mr Pigeon
 
WensleyMU said:
Scottish law and English law are not the same. If they were there would be no need for the distinction...
Click to expand...

Without getting into the details of a particular text, your statement is wrong. The "nationality" of a law is based on its origin not the text itself, meaning who promulgated it. The exact same text will be scottish law when it's promulgated in Scotland and it will be english law when it's promulgated in England due to the fact that there are two parliaments involved.
 
T00lsh3d said:
Don’t see, beyond the scary title, what the fuss with chlorinated chicken is. There’s plenty of really shit, cheap chicken on the market already. A quick scan of the ingredients tells you what rubbish is in it.
You want better chicken? By some better quality. You want a cheap shop? By the cheap shit
Click to expand...

The issue is that there's always another rung down the ladder you can go in terms of welfare and quality. There's a role for Government in determining what the minimum should be.
 
T00lsh3d said:
Don’t see, beyond the scary title, what the fuss with chlorinated chicken is. There’s plenty of really shit, cheap chicken on the market already. A quick scan of the ingredients tells you what rubbish is in it.
You want better chicken? By some better quality. You want a cheap shop? By the cheap shit
Click to expand...

The fuss is mentioned by @RedChip, it's not a matter of being cheap. It's about the entire process of killing and transformation of the meat, heavy usage of chlorine is supposed to lead to relatively bad sanitary conditons in the entire process due to the fact that at the end of it products can be bathed into chlorine.
 
Oldyella said:
No difference in regards this case. As stated in the summary.

Click to expand...


Thank you. While I am dubious as to the validity of the claim due to clear bias of those posting (one of them was responsible for bringing the case), it's at least something. Again, because everything has to be clarified here, I am not saying bits wrong, only that the person behind the case itself isn't going to undermine his own case by saying it is actually different, is he? Unless he a bit thick, or in the government...

Any idea what document the snippet posted on the tweet is from? That might give a clearer picture.
 
T00lsh3d said:
Don’t see, beyond the scary title, what the fuss with chlorinated chicken is. There’s plenty of really shit, cheap chicken on the market already. A quick scan of the ingredients tells you what rubbish is in it.
You want better chicken? By some better quality. You want a cheap shop? By the cheap shit
Click to expand...

Correct. People need to support their local butcher to be honest.
 
WensleyMU said:
Thank you. While I am dubious as to the validity of the claim due to clear bias of those posting (one of them was responsible for bringing the case), it's at least something. Again, because everything has to be clarified here, I am not saying bits wrong, only that the person behind the case itself isn't going to undermine his own case by saying it is actually different, is he? Unless he a bit thick, or in the government...

Any idea what document the snippet posted on the tweet is from? That might give a clearer picture.
Click to expand...

Apparently the main difference in the decisions is because English law follows a belief in the absolute authority of parliament, while Scottish law does not. And neither has primacy over the other, so it'll be interesting to see what the supreme court make of it. Although I suspect they'll overturn the Scottish decision.
 
WensleyMU said:
On a separate note, a reminder in The Times to day about how utterly useless Labour are. And this comes from the EU.

Apparently bemused about their insane negotiation tactics.

One quote states that they may be even more chaotic than the Tory Party.

As if a reminder was needed.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...planit&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_content=22278
Click to expand...

Got to love the endless propaganda about how chaotic Labour would be, despite the fact we've just had literally years of the Tories driving the country to the brink of absolute chaos. They've trampled all over parliamentary convention and the constitution, left us weeks away from crashing the economy onto the rocks, left the country bitterly divided in two and quite possibly doomed the union, but hey look over there, scary chaotic Labour! Bollocks.
 
WensleyMU said:
Thank you. While I am dubious as to the validity of the claim due to clear bias of those posting (one of them was responsible for bringing the case), it's at least something. Again, because everything has to be clarified here, I am not saying bits wrong, only that the person behind the case itself isn't going to undermine his own case by saying it is actually different, is he? Unless he a bit thick, or in the government...

Any idea what document the snippet posted on the tweet is from? That might give a clearer picture.
Click to expand...

This snippet is from the summary ofLord Doherty, who refused the initial appeal last week. So any claims of biase don't really come into it.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/11/brexit-ultras-triumph-neoliberalism

At first sight it’s incomprehensible. Why risk everything for a no-deal Brexit? Breaking up their own party, losing their parliamentary majority, dismantling the UK, trashing the economy, triggering shortages of food and medicine: how could any objective, for the Conservative and Unionist party, be worth this? What good does it do them?

Yes, some people will benefit. To judge by recent donations to the Conservative party, some very rich people approve of Boris Johnson’s policies. A no-deal Brexit might favour hedge funds that thrive on uncertainty, financiers seeking to short the pound, vulture capitalists hoping to mop up cheap property if markets collapse. But the winners are likely to be greatly outnumbered by the losers, among whom are many powerful commercial interests.

We make a mistake when we assume that money is the main motivation. Our unreformed, corrupt and corrupting political funding system ensures it is an important factor. But what counts above all else is ideology, as ideology successfully pursued is the means to power. You cannot exercise true power over other people unless you can shape the way they think, and shape their behaviour on the basis of that thought. The long-term interests of ideology differ from the short-term interests of politics.

This, I believe, is the key to understanding what is happening today. The Brexit ultras in government are not just Brexit ultras. They are neoliberal ultras, and Brexit is a highly effective means of promoting this failed ideology. It’s the ultimate shock doctrine, using a public emergency to justify the imposition of policies that wouldn’t be accepted in ordinary times. Whether they really want no deal or not, the threat of it creates the political space in which they can apply their ideas.

Neoliberlaism is the ideology developed by people such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. It is not just a set of free-market ideas, but a focused discipline, deliberately applied around the world. It treats competition as humanity’s defining characteristic, sees citizens as consumers and “the market” as society’s organising principle. The market, it claims, sorts us into a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Any attempt by politics to intervene disrupts the discovery of this natural order.

It was embraced by Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and most subsequent governments. They sought to implement the doctrine by cutting taxes, privatising and outsourcing public services, slashing public protections, crushing trade unions and creating markets where markets did not exist before. The doctrine was imposed by central banks, the IMF, the Maastricht treaty and the World Trade Organization. By shutting down political choice, governments and international bodies created a kind of totalitarian capitalism.

It has failed on its own terms, and in many other ways. Far from creating general prosperity, growth has been slower in the neoliberal era than it was in preceding decades, and most of its fruits have been gathered by the rich. Far from stimulating an enterprise economy, it has created a gilded age for rent-seekers. Far from eliminating bureaucracy, it has created a Kafkaesque system of mad diktats and stifling control. It has fomented ecological, social, political, economic and financial crises, culminating in the 2008 crash. Yet, perhaps because its opponents have not produced a new, compelling story of their own, it still dominates our lives.

Unsurprisingly, people have reacted to the closure of political choice and the multiple disasters it caused. But because neoliberalism, in broad terms, was adopted not only by the right, but also by the Democrats, New Labour and similar parties, there were few places to turn. Many people responded with nationalism and nativism. The new politics that Boris Johnson’s government represents incorporates both neoliberalism and the reaction to it. The glitter-eyed essentialists on the frontbenches – such as Dominic Raab, Liz Truss and Sajid Javid – still seek to implement the ideology in its most extreme form. The opportunists, such as Johnson, Michael Gove and Priti Patel, appeal to those who seek scapegoats for the disasters it has created.

Johnson uses neoliberal framing to justify his attacks on public safety. He wants to pull down environmental standards, create free ports in which businesses can avoid tax and regulation, and strike a rapid trade deal with the United States that is likely to rip up animal welfare rules and threaten the survival of the NHS.

He rages against red tape, but the real red tape is created by the international trade treaties he favours, that render democratic change almost impossible, through rules that protect capital against popular challenge, and shift decision-making away from parliaments and into unaccountable offshore courts (“investor-state dispute settlement”). This explains the enthusiasm among some on the left for Brexit: a belief that escaping from the EU means escaping from coercive trade instruments. In reality, it exposes us to something even worse, as the UK enters negotiations with the US, holding a begging bowl.

Now, as the professor of political economy Abby Innes argues, neoliberalism has reached its Brezhnev phase: “ossification, self-dealing, and directionless political churn”. Like Leninism, neoliberalism claims to be an infallible science. Its collision with the complexities of the real world has caused political sclerosis of the kind that characterised the decline of Soviet communism. As a result, “the only way to complete this revolution today is under cover of other projects: Brexit is ideal”.

The creation of emergency is the inevitable destination of an absolutist, failed system. But emergency also provides the last means by which the failed system can be defended and extended.

• George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist
Click to expand...
 
Kentonio said:
Got to love the endless propaganda about how chaotic Labour would be, despite the fact we've just had literally years of the Tories driving the country to the brink of absolute chaos. They've trampled all over parliamentary convention and the constitution, left us weeks away from crashing the economy onto the rocks, left the country bitterly divided in two and quite possibly doomed the union, but hey look over there, scary chaotic Labour! Bollocks.
Click to expand...

I don't thinks it's propaganda. Labour have stated they will negotiate a deal and then campaign against it. So you can see why the EU might be scratching their heads.
 
Kentonio said:
Got to love the endless propaganda about how chaotic Labour would be, despite the fact we've just had literally years of the Tories driving the country to the brink of absolute chaos. They've trampled all over parliamentary convention and the constitution, left us weeks away from crashing the economy onto the rocks, left the country bitterly divided in two and quite possibly doomed the union, but hey look over there, scary chaotic Labour! Bollocks.
Click to expand...

To be fair I still have no idea what Labour's position is on Brexit - that is frankly unforgivable.
 
Another good read from Paul Mason in The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...lised-boris-johnson-pernicious-plan-democracy

Chaos is being normalised. It is all part of Boris Johnson’s pernicious plan
Paul Mason

To expedite his power grab, the prime minister has brought darkness to our democracy and to our streets. We must resist

On Saturday, for the first time in living memory, neo-fascists were chanting the name of the serving prime minister. Supporters of the English Defence League and the Democratic Football Lads Alliance wandered around Whitehall some drunk, harassing random remain protesters and shouting into the faces of journalists until, inevitably, they attacked the police.

It’s part of an unnerving trend that’s emerged in the past two weeks: the normalisation of chaos.

We have a parliament suspended against its will. We have ministers threatening to break the law. We have allegations that a network of advisers inside Whitehall are using encrypted messaging to circumvent legal scrutiny. And we have briefings to selected journalists that the government might suspend the rule of law by invoking the Emergency Powers Act.

Yet at the end of the headlines there is always the weather and the same jokey riff between a presenter and a hapless BBC political correspondent. Nine out of 10 stories on the front pages of news sites remain focused on dating, food fads and the antics of minor royals.

Nothing in this bleak and blurry picture is happening by accident. Listen to the reported promises of Dominic Cummings: he will “wreck” the Labour party conference; he will “purge” the Tory rebels; he will “smash” Jeremy Corbyn and he reportedly does not care if Northern Ireland “falls into the sea”.

This is a power-grab run to a script, whereby every time the government is thwarted by MPs it simply ups the ante: between now and the European council meeting in October, it will stage one calculated outrage after another.

One of the most dangerous factors in this situation is the incomprehension of Britain’s technocratic elites. At Eton they might ask pupils to write the imaginary speech they would give while leading a military coup, but on the philosophy, politics and economics course at Oxford, it is generally assumed you are heading for a career in the governance of a stable democracy.

Few are prepared to address the material roots and class dynamics of this crisis, because nobody taught them to do so. But they are clear.

In Britain, as in the US, the business elite has fractured into two groups: one wants to defend the multilateral global order and globalised free trade; another desires to break the system. Here, as with Trump, that group includes the fracking bosses, the tax-dodging private equity bosses and the speculative ends of property and high finance.

Here, as with Trump, the instability they need also suits the geopolitical aims of Vladimir Putin – whose mouthpieces Sputnik, Ruptly and RT are offering quiet support for Boris Johnson’s narrative, if not the man himself. But this is also a transatlantic project of the Trump administration. For Trump, the prize of a no-deal Brexit on 31 October is a pliant, shattered trading partner and a potential accomplice for the provocations he is planning against Iran.

The liberal establishment – found in the corporate boardrooms, among the masters of Oxbridge colleges, in law and medicine and among the old-money landowners – does not know what to do. Meanwhile the working class is more divided culturally than at any point since Oswald Mosley tried to march down Cable Street.

I don’t want to encourage paranoia, but as a mental exercise ask yourself: if there was a single mind coordinating this crisis, what would it be thinking now?

First, that the fragility of the unwritten constitution is a proven fact. If parliament can be prorogued once, it can be prorogued again. Second, that parts of the British media have no stomach for the task of actively defending the rule of law and the principle of accountability.

Third, that an atmosphere of weariness is descending on the mass of people. They were already weary of Brexit and are now getting weary of endless headlines about a constitutional crisis that never seems to end.

In the 1930s, the psychologist Erich Fromm noted that the ideal conditions for the rise of dictators and autocrats was a “state of inner tiredness and resignation”, which he attributed to the pace of life in stressed, industrialised societies.

Among the German working class, Fromm observed “a deep feeling of resignation, of disbelief in their leaders, of doubt about the value of any kind of political organization and political activity … deep within themselves many had given up any hope in the effectiveness of political action”.

It is this above all that we have to fight – like sleep after a night shift – in the next five weeks. Among the urban, educated and salaried working class this moment already feels like the start of the poll tax rebellion. But in small town, deindustrialised communities there is confusion. People in those places thought that Brexit was a rebellion for democracy against the elite, but here’s the actual elite – the Queen, Jacob Rees-Mogg and co – shutting down democracy. How we address that mood will determine the outcome of the situation.

Professional politics has come to focus on micro-polling and message testing, but the most instinctive thing to do is get down to a pub this Friday night, in a place you know there’s going to be support for Johnson, and calmly argue the toss.

The transparent aim of Johnson is to create a chaotic situation, in which decent people become too frightened by fascists and football hooligans to protest; in which the progressive majority of voters are otherised as “luvvies, climate loons and traitors” – a darkest hour in which, though he created the darkness, he eventually gets to switch on the lights.

We need now to reach across party loyalties and demographic differences to explain face to face: what we’re living through is not normal, nor accidental. It’s a fabricated chaos. And the road back to normality lies through getting Johnson out of Downing Street.

• Paul Mason is a writer and broadcaster on economics and social justice
Click to expand...
 
Kentonio said:
Apparently the main difference in the decisions is because English law follows a belief in the absolute authority of parliament, while Scottish law does not. And neither has primacy over the other, so it'll be interesting to see what the supreme court make of it. Although I suspect they'll overturn the Scottish decision.
Click to expand...

I think there's a chance they will reject the governments appeal because Scots Law is likely not have been applied correctly. That is the basis on which the appeal is being brought as far as I know.

There's also a chance they will say that it was not political matter and therefore the courts have no role, as they did in the Miller case.

If it was just the Scots case being appealed, then the former would be more likely. As it is both cases, being seen as one, I think the supreme court will rule that the court has no role to play.
 
Kentonio said:
Apparently the main difference in the decisions is because English law follows a belief in the absolute authority of parliament, while Scottish law does not. And neither has primacy over the other, so it'll be interesting to see what the supreme court make of it. Although I suspect they'll overturn the Scottish decision.
Click to expand...

Without going into details, no.
 
WensleyMU said:
Thanks.

I guess it's all down to the Supreme Court now then.
Click to expand...

1) This is what I told you from the outset.
2) I also told you it wasnt a matter of different laws from the outset.

What is the point in posting to you if you simply don't listen and spam the same questions over and over because you don't like the answers? Genuine question.
 
finneh said:
No... I'm suggesting if chlorinated chicken were harmful journalists, scientists and officials would find out and it would be banned.

If it was absolutely fine but tasted worse then that's down to capitalism to decide whether the saving is worth the taste.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be concentrating on whether or not its harmful, i would be wondering what sort of preparation process it goes through that it needs to be washed in Chlorine.
 
owlo said:
1) This is what I told you from the outset.
2) I also told you it wasnt a matter of different laws from the outset.

What is the point in posting to you if you simply don't listen and spam the same questions over and over because you don't like the answers? Genuine question.
Click to expand...

The difference being some sort of evidence to support the claim.

And it still isn't entirely clear, nor will it be now until the 17th, so the discussion is frankly pointless.
 
balaks said:
To be fair I still have no idea what Labour's position is on Brexit - that is frankly unforgivable.
Click to expand...

Me too, which is why I'm probably voting Lib Dem next time. Not that it makes any difference in my home constituency anyway.
 
owlo said:
Without going into details, no.
Click to expand...

Ah interesting, that was something I picked up from some lawyer twitter account yesterday, but I probably misunderstood the context. Could you give a little more information if its not too much bother?
 
T00lsh3d said:
Don’t see, beyond the scary title, what the fuss with chlorinated chicken is. There’s plenty of really shit, cheap chicken on the market already. A quick scan of the ingredients tells you what rubbish is in it.
You want better chicken? By some better quality. You want a cheap shop? By the cheap shit
Click to expand...



I'll just leave this here so people can actually bother to understand the issue. It's not about quality its about public health, a lot points to these methods causing more salmonella cases.

You might say fine as long as it's labelled clearly i don't have to buy it but when you eat out you're not going to know and if it's cheaper shops will use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.