Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Sheaf Saint]

Utterly destroyed? Here is the interview. I hear him giving as good as he got. Actual facts used against him?

 

It is the usual situation from the biased BBC, both the interviewer and a guest speaker both remoaners to the core, much like QT, usually four against one.

 

Then perhaps we're both guilty of only hearing what we want to hear. It's a very common human failing to which we all succumb, whether we realise it or not.

 

The key point here is that Steve Baker described this 'evidence' as being non-aligned. But given Lilley's well known position and previous record, and his close links with all of the same pro-Brexit think tanks as Baker himself, it's fair to say his report is nothing of the sort.

[Wes Tender]

Not entirely sure cheaper clothing, cheaper food and cheaper shoes will make up for poorer public services, lower wages/employment protection, reduced employment opportunities, possibly increased pollution and lower environmental standards? Guess we are going to find out over the next 50 years.

 

Where is the evidence that all of those things you list will take place? There isn't any. If you believe there is, then you will no doubt be happy to show it.

[Wes Tender]

Then perhaps we're both guilty of only hearing what we want to hear. It's a very common human failing to which we all succumb, whether we realise it or not.

 

The key point here is that Steve Baker described this 'evidence' as being non-aligned. But given Lilley's well known position and previous record, and his close links with all of the same pro-Brexit think tanks as Baker himself, it's fair to say his report is nothing of the sort.

 

That is a more reasonable position, that in a debate between two opposing positions, we naturally support the arguments put forward by the side we support. I took the more balanced position that Lilley didn't get destroyed, he gave as good as he got.

[Wes Tender]

Go back and read what I posted, and quoted ( from JRM himself " We won't know the full economic consequences for a very long time". "....whether it will be better or worse". ). Don't insult my intelligence, I think that so far I've been reasonably courteous towards you. Also, most of those who had just passed voting age at the point of the referendum voted to remain, and I suggest that those who have reached it since would most likely hold the same opinion.

 

So you accept that J R-M didn't say that it would take 50 before we knew the economic outcome of leaving the EU? How long is a long time? Months, years, decades? Whilst providing that definition, tell us how long a period is temporary (as in the temporary backstop).

 

What does it matter that a majority of the yoof voted to remain in the EU? A majority of the electorate regardless of age voted to leave. I know that some of the sandal wearing, bearded left believed that the yoof should have a double vote, but that proposition would never ever fly. In the same way that we who voted to join the EEC/EU, had to wait over 40 years before we could vote to leave, the newly enfranchised voters should wait several years themselves to see how it pans out.

[shurlock]

Utterly destroyed? Here is the interview. I hear him giving as good as he got. Actual facts used against him?

 

It is the usual situation from the biased BBC, both the interviewer and a guest speaker both remoaners to the core, much like QT, usually four against one.

 

 

I know others can’t match your levels of fervour and belief, Al-Tenderi, but John Humphrys a remainer to the core?

 

#mess

[shurlock]

 

You are entitled to believe that J R-M is only it for his own personal gain, but there is no evidence of that at all. He was wealthy enough before entering politics and almost certainly could earn far more by concentrating solely on business matters. Often enough he promotes the benefits accruing to the poorest in our society from leaving the EU customs union and single market, because food, clothing and shoes which account for the highest percentage of their expenditure will be cheaper. If you think that he is not sincere, then that is up to you. Although many are career politicians in it for their own ends, I don't think that he is one of them.

 

 

Is this the same JRM who enthusiastically cited a bogus Sun article ‘Vote for Bargains’ on the alleged savings for British consumers from Brexit -an article that was so shockingly amateur and inaccurate that even the Sun was forced into an embarrassing climb down over its claims?

 

Of course, JRM did no such thing. But then again if you have a posh, patrician drawl in this country, you can get away with murder and, Les, you do strike me as the dim, deferential type.

Edited 21 November, 2018 by shurlock

[benjii]

Al-Tenderi's Chocolate Homunculus.

[shurlock]

Al-Tenderi's Chocolate Homunculus.

 

The psychedelic/prog rock masterpiece that never was.

 

...still more grounded in reality than our Les.

[sandwichsaint]

Where is the evidence that all of those things you list will take place? There isn't any. If you believe there is, then you will no doubt be happy to show it.

 

There is no ‘evidence’ either way, we haven’t actually secured cheaper shoes/food/clothing yet but don’t let that deter you, everybody to the English barricades to fight for cheap rubbish food and cheap sweatshop clothing and damn that Johnny Foreigner too. On the other hand I’m pretty sure our new uber lords aren’t in it to increase the share of the futurist unicorn cake going to ordinary people (they don’t believe in that), nor to improve public services (they openly don’t believe in them), nor to increase environmental standards (they don’t believe in those either). I know it was a while ago that you were in the fourth-form Les (it's a bit of a giveaway really, that terminology went out of use 30 years ago) but were you away when they did reading the writing on the wall?

[Wes Tender]

Is this the same JRM who enthusiastically cited a bogus Sun article ‘Vote for Bargains’ on the alleged savings for British consumers from Brexit -an article that was so shockingly amateur and inaccurate that even the Sun was forced into an embarrassing climb down over its claims?

 

Of course, JRM did no such thing. But then again if you have a posh, patrician drawl in this country, you can get away with murder and, Les, you do strike me as the dim, deferential type.

 

Shurlock hurling insults at those who disagree with him. Quel surprise! His usual playgound puerility

[Cabbage_Face]

Shurlock hurling insults at those who disagree with him. Quel surprise! His usual playgound puerility

 

He can't debate very well. #mess

[shurlock]

Shurlock hurling insults at those who disagree with him. Quel surprise! His usual playgound puerility

 

So you don’t deny that the Sun/JRM grossly overstated the size of consumer savings and betrayed a basic misunderstanding of how tariffs work?

 

Good thanks for agreeing with me. Case closed or as JJ would put it game, set and match.

[Wes Tender]

There is no ‘evidence’ either way, we haven’t actually secured cheaper shoes/food/clothing yet but don’t let that deter you, everybody to the English barricades to fight for cheap rubbish food and cheap sweatshop clothing and damn that Johnny Foreigner too. On the other hand I’m pretty sure our new uber lords aren’t in it to increase the share of the futurist unicorn cake going to ordinary people (they don’t believe in that), nor to improve public services (they openly don’t believe in them), nor to increase environmental standards (they don’t believe in those either). I know it was a while ago that you were in the fourth-form Les (it's a bit of a giveaway really, that terminology went out of use 30 years ago) but were you away when they did reading the writing on the wall?

 

You're all over the place; one could almost think that the picnic is missing a sandwich. As shoes, food and clothing are the items attracting the highest protectionist tariffs to safeguard EU growers and clothing and shoe manufacturers, it follows that provided we are free to negotiate our own independent trade deals with other countries, that those items can be imported at much lower prices. And thanks for the laugh at your naivety in labeling food from outside of the EU as rubbish, as is the clothing and shoes too. As for sweatshop labour, that doesn't exist in Europe, does it? You obviously missed the Simon Reeve documentary showing the cheap immigrant labour living in squalid hovels, charged high rents from their paltry wages to harvest fruit and vegetables in Spain and probably echoed in other EU fruit and veg growing countries too. As for shoes, as examples, most of Clarks' range is made in the Far East and M & S stock comes in from all over the place. But still, we can't have the poorest in our society being able to have cheaper food, shoes and clothes, can we, because it would affect the economies of producers and manufacturers of those items in the EU, whilst benefiting those often third world countries who would export them to us.

 

As to the rest of your post, it is pointless answering it. Everybody has the opportunity to vote out a government that doesn't deliver on those things. As a matter of interest, what terminology are you referring too? And no, I didn't miss "The writing on the wall" Here it is if you should want to refresh your memory:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70LhQsTZkGA

[Verbal]

He can't debate very well. #mess

 

Actually Shylock W@nkstein (as al-Tenderi calls him) is factually correct. There's actually a long sociological tradition in studying deferential Tory voters. See for example Frank Parkin's 'Working Class Conservatives: a Theory of Political Deviance'.

[Wes Tender]

So you don’t deny that the Sun/JRM grossly overstated the size of consumer savings and betrayed a basic misunderstanding of how tariffs work?

 

Good thanks for agreeing with me. Case closed or as JJ would put it game, set and match.

 

J R-M didn't overstate the consumer savings. The Sun did and he merely tweeted thanks for them highlighting it. You don't seriously believe that J R-M reads the Sun, do you?

[Wes Tender]

He can't debate very well. #mess

 

Verbal is just as puerile. See his prize exhibit below. Who do you think is worse out of the two of them? It's a close run thing. Maybe they are one and the same.

[shurlock]

J R-M didn't overstate the consumer savings. The Sun did and he merely tweeted thanks for them highlighting it. You don't seriously believe that J R-M reads the Sun, do you?

 

Wriggle, wriggle, wiggle ever more desperately and unconvincingly.

 

JRM endorsed the findings. Any Brexiteer with an ounce of knowledge in this area would have stayed away from them like the plague, not approvingly share the article and thank the Sun for calculating the huge savings outside the customs union

 

At least the Sun issued a clarification following complaints to the Independent Press Standards Organisation - it was quite a whopper as well.

 

AN article, ‘Vote for bargains’ (27 Feb) described the potential savings on a number of goods, if EU tariffs were removed after Brexit.

 

Unfortunately, we made our calculations on retail prices, when tariffs are actually applied when goods arrive in the UK.

 

For example, we said that savings on Nike Air Trainers would be £20.40, but savings would actually be closer to £7.50.

 

There were also mistakes in the calculations for individual items.

For example, saving on a £2 pack of butter was given as £1, but the tariff is about 42p per pack.

 

Savings on an LG flatscreen TV was given as £44, but there’s an EU free trade agreement with South Korea, so there is no tariff.

 

Leaving the Customs Union would not necessarily directly result in any savings on cigarettes and not £4.54 as stated.

 

Savings on cherry tomatoes was given as 21p, but almost all EU imports of tomatoes come from Morocco, which has a preferential arrangement with the EU.

 

The tariff on mozzarella is*€1.85/kg, so the saving on a 125g packet would be about 20p, not 69p.

 

The article also stated that we pay trade charges on more than 13,000 items from outside the EU.

In fact, for many of these goods, no tariffs or charges are payable.

 

One has to wonder about the credibility, expertise and integrity of anyone who aligned themselves with this analysis. But hey Jacob’s got a plummy accent

 

Les do yourself a favour pal and quit while you can.

[Wes Tender]

Wriggle, wriggle, wiggle ever more desperately and unconvincingly.

 

JRM endorsed the findings. Any Brexiteer with an ounce of knowledge in this area would have stayed away from them like the plague, not approvingly share the article and thank the Sun for calculating the huge savings outside the customs union

 

At least the Sun issued a clarification following complaints to the Independent Press Standards Organisation - it was quite a whopper as well.

 

 

 

One has to wonder about the credibility, expertise and integrity of anyone who aligned themselves with this analysis. But hey Jacob’s got a plummy accent

 

Les do yourself a favour pal and quit while you can.

 

Mountain out of a molehill, I'm afraid. I doubt whether he cast much of an eye over the article, probably just glanced at it and tweeted a quick response. If you wish to put more credence on it than that, and question his credibility, expertise or integrity, then it makes you look like a bit of a desperate tw*t.

[shurlock]

Mountain out of a molehill, I'm afraid. I doubt whether he cast much of an eye over the article, probably just glanced at it and tweeted a quick response. If you wish to put more credence on it than that, and question his credibility, expertise or integrity, then it makes you look like a bit of a desperate tw*t.

 

Of course not Les: why would you care if people thought you were a weapons-grade duffer (his cute little reference to cigarettes in the tweet shows just how seriously he was taking himself).

 

Or just maybe he didn’t care because he knew thousands of impressionable thickos would lap up and like his tweet. I hope you weren’t one of them Les

[Wes Tender]

Of course not Les: why would you care if people thought you were a weapons-grade duffer (his cute little reference to cigarettes in the tweet shows just how seriously he was taking himself).

 

Or just maybe he didn’t care because he knew thousands of impressionable thickos would lap up and like his tweet. I hope you weren’t one of them Les

 

I'm not on tw*tter myself, and I doubt whether I'll ever bother with it, so it doesn't really concern me.

[Verbal]

Verbal is just as puerile. See his prize exhibit below. Who do you think is worse out of the two of them? It's a close run thing. Maybe they are one and the same.

 

Could you have a word with your lords and masters at Vote Leave to rig this competition so I win?

[Cabbage_Face]

Alot of Butthurt on this forum.

[shurlock]

I'm not on tw*tter myself, and I doubt whether I'll ever bother with it, so it doesn't really concern me.

 

Les. I know it’s a complicated topic, so I fully understand why it’s a struggle for you.

 

But here are some facts pal:

 

*The average tariff applied on the sorts of goods the UK imports is already pretty low – at around 2.8%. Nearly 40% of the goods that the UK imports from outside the EU enter the country tariff free. In other words, leaving the customs union and eliminating tariffs would make no difference in these cases.

 

*By contrast, the products that face a tariff rate of 10% or more account for only 4.4% of the value of the UK’s total goods imports.

 

*Further note that the majority of household consumption is domestic, that is, it is spent on local goods and services. Little more than a quarter of household consumption spending is potentially affected by tariff changes. In other words, eliminating tariffs will only be felt at the edges.

 

*Putting these pieces together, the IFS estimates that the complete elimination of all tariffs would reduce prices faced by UK households by 0.7-1.2%. Breathtaking stuff.

 

*Indeed, this estimate is highly optimistic: it assumes that the UK will eliminate tariffs on goods that the UK produces itself.

 

Of course, the poor are not only consumers but also workers: eliminating tariffs in these industries would be highly disruptive for less skilled workers, increasing unemployment and wage inequality. Jihadists like Patrick Minford (also Jacob’s favourite economist) are perfectly comfortable with this scenario. Given you drink the same kool aid as these swivels, I’ll leave it to you to explain how this is poor-friendly.

 

*I’ll also leave it to you to explain how unilaterally cutting tariffs strengthens the UK’s negotiating position with other countries.

 

*Needless to say the UK might choose to reduce tariffs only on the goods that the UK doesn’t produce itself - in which case consumer savings fall even further (~0.4%). This paltry figure is swamped, for example, by the increase in prices that followed the fall in the pound never mind the considerable costs to trade that would flow from leaving the customs union and single market.

 

Al-tenderi: I know it’s easier to find refuge in blind belief and the comforting patrician drawl of JRM but HTH pal.

Edited 21 November, 2018 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

Les. I know it’s a complicated topic, so I fully understand why it’s a struggle for you.

 

But here are some facts pal:

 

*The average tariff applied on the sorts of goods the UK imports is already pretty low – at around 2.8%. Nearly 40% of the goods that the UK imports from outside the EU enter tariff free. In other words, leaving the customs union and eliminating tariffs would make no difference in these cases.

 

*By contrast, the products that face a tariff rate of 10% or more account for only 4.4% of the value of the UK’s total goods imports.

 

*Further note that the majority of household consumption is domestic, that is, it is spent on local goods and services. Little more than a quarter of household consumption spending is potentially affected by tariff changes. In other words, eliminating tariffs will only be felt at the edges.

 

*Putting these pieces together, the IFS estimates that the complete elimination of all tariffs would reduce prices faced by UK households by 0.7-1.2%. Breathtaking stuff.

 

*Indeed, this estimate is highly optimistic: it assumes that the UK will eliminate tariffs on goods that the UK produces itself.

 

Of course, the poor are not only consumers but also workers: eliminating tariffs in these industries would be highly disruptive for less skilled workers, increasing unemployment and wage inequality. Jihadists like Patrick Minford (also Jacob’s favourite economist) are perfectly comfortable with this scenario. Given you drink the same kool aid as these swivels, I’ll leave it to you to explain how this is poor-friendly.

 

*I’ll also leave it to you to explain how unilaterally cutting tariffs strengthens the UK’s negotiating position with other countries.

 

*Needless to say the UK might choose to reduce tariffs only on the goods that the UK doesn’t produce itself - in which case consumer savings fall even further (~0.4%). This paltry figure is swamped, for example, by the increase in prices that followed the fall in the pound never mind the inevitable costs to trade that would result from leaving the customs union and single market.

 

Al-tenderi: I know it’s easier to find refuge in blind belief and the comforting patrician drawl of JRM but HTH pal.

 

What have I done by telling you that I'm not on tw*tter to elicit this diatribe? I'm perfectly capable of doing my own reading up about our trade and tariffs, without you patronising me, thanks

[buctootim]

One piece of project fear put to bed. From the EU themselves, planes will be able to fly in the event of “no deal”.

 

 

That doesnt cover a huge part of the picture though. Currently British airlines (and all other EU based airlines) can fly to and from any European city. That means British Airways for example can schedule a plane to leave Gatwick at 06.00, fly to Berlin, then fly from Berlin to say Madrid, onwards from Madrid to the Canaries, from the Canaries back to Turn and from Turin back Heathrow. It enables a highly efficient use of planes and crew. If we leave without an agreement, even if the above rules do apply, British planes will be able to fly from the UK to a EU city and back to the UK, but not to make intra EU flights between two EU countries. That means EU based airlines will have a huge cost and flexibility advantage. Its the primary reason that Easyjet set up Easy jet Europe last July (based in Vienna) and why British Airways are now approaching the Spanish Government to be domiciled in Madrid.

Edited 21 November, 2018 by buctootim

[shurlock]

What have I done by telling you that I'm not on tw*tter to elicit this diatribe? I'm perfectly capable of doing my own reading up about our trade and tariffs, without you patronising me, thanks

 

Have I gone too quickly for you Les? Should I slow down?

 

You’re the one who trumpeted the huge gains to the poor in the form of cheaper imports from leaving the CU and SM.

 

I simply pointed out that average tariffs were already low; the value of the UK’s total goods imports that face high tariffs is tiny; the majority of household consumption is domestic; the economic and political risks associated with the wholesale elimination of tariffs. All of which undermine your little fairytale.

 

So where do you disagree and what’s your supporting evidence?

[CB Fry]

Absolute Mess Tender.

[badgerx16]

So you accept that J R-M didn't say that it would take 50 before we knew the economic outcome of leaving the EU?

I never said that he did, I merely posted direct quotes from his Channel 4 News interview. I leave it to other people to fabricate 'facts' or deliberately misread things, usually it's Politicians.

Edited 21 November, 2018 by badgerx16

[RedArmy]

Could you have a word with your lords and masters at Vote Leave to rig this competition so I win?

 

Don't worry. You can just ask for a people's vote if you lose.

[Sheaf Saint]

"US trade deal would flood Britain with 'cheap, inhumanely produced' bacon"

 

https://twitter.com/Scientists4EU/status/1065617152248594432

 

Nick Giordano, vice president and counsel for the National Pork Producers Council:

 

“The UK has to decide whether it’s really leaving the EU or not. The rest of the world does not subscribe to the nanny state approach. We expect the UK to accept our product without equivocation. Americans eat it, so it’s good enough for our friends across the pond.”

 

Taking back control, huh?

[buctootim]

[shurlock]

 

Will it come with a side of Isoproturon?

[buctootim]

Will it come with a side of Isoproturon?

 

GM's perfect dinner once we get our sovereignty back

[Lord Duckhunter]

"US trade deal would flood Britain with 'cheap, inhumanely produced' bacon"

 

https://twitter.com/Scientists4EU/status/1065617152248594432

 

 

 

Taking back control, huh?

 

Nobody will force you to eat it.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RedArmy]

"US trade deal would flood Britain with 'cheap, inhumanely produced' bacon"

 

https://twitter.com/Scientists4EU/status/1065617152248594432

 

 

 

Taking back control, huh?

Meanwhile the majority turn a blind eye to halal meat being served and sold in this country.

 

But that doesn't support your EU bias, does it?

[Sheaf Saint]

Nobody will force you to eat it.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

True, but 'flooding' the UK with cheap imported meat from the US will have a huge knock-on effect on British meat farmers who will find it much harder to compete. Surely you recognise that?

[Sheaf Saint]

Meanwhile the majority turn a blind eye to halal meat being served and sold in this country.

 

But that doesn't support your EU bias, does it?

 

How is that relevant?

 

Halal only refers to how the animal is slaughtered. It doesn't in any way impact on welfare standards during rearing and doesn't undercut UK meat suppliers in the way that the American meat would if we are forced to accept their trade terms.

[Verbal]

Meanwhile the majority turn a blind eye to halal meat being served and sold in this country.

 

But that doesn't support your EU bias, does it?

 

So this suggests two options.

 

You're either deeply committed to animal rights and are a vegan of some years' standing...

 

...or you're an Islamophobic scumbag.

 

Which to choose, which to choose...?

 

Nope, can't decide. Poll please mods.

[Batman]

How is that relevant?

 

Halal only refers to how the animal is slaughtered. It doesn't in any way impact on welfare standards during rearing and doesn't undercut UK meat suppliers in the way that the American meat would if we are forced to accept their trade terms.

 

Halal is fine in the U.K. as the animal is whacked or stunned before its throat is slit and hung up for all the blood to drain.

 

Other nations, not so. But that is fine and absolutely no animal rights groups have a problem.

 

But mention America. Woooooooaaah there

Edited 23 November, 2018 by Batman

[doddisalegend]

Study shows 60% of Britons believe in conspiracy theories

 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/study-shows-60percent-of-britons-believe-in-conspiracy-theories/ar-BBPZF28?ocid=spartandhp

 

Sixty per cent of British people believe at least one conspiracy theory about how the country is run or the veracity of information they are given, a major new study has found, part of a pattern of deep distrust of authority that has become widespread across Europe and the US.

In the UK, people who supported Brexit are considerably more likely to give credence to conspiracy theories than those who opposed it, with 71% of leave voters believing at least one theory compared with 49% of remain voters.

[whelk]

Study shows 60% of Britons believe in conspiracy theories

 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/study-shows-60percent-of-britons-believe-in-conspiracy-theories/ar-BBPZF28?ocid=spartandhp

 

Sixty per cent of British people believe at least one conspiracy theory about how the country is run or the veracity of information they are given, a major new study has found, part of a pattern of deep distrust of authority that has become widespread across Europe and the US.

In the UK, people who supported Brexit are considerably more likely to give credence to conspiracy theories than those who opposed it, with 71% of leave voters believing at least one theory compared with 49% of remain voters.

 

Must be some IQ correlation there.

[shurlock]

So we now have the UKIP and Tommy Robinson tie-up. Wonder what kippers like Al-Tenderi and LD think.

[Verbal]

So we now have the UKIP and Tommy Robinson tie-up. Wonder what kippers like Al-Tenderi and LD think.

 

That's a rabbit hole no one should be forced to dive into.

 

However, there's a neat theory in psychology called nominative determinism, which posits basically that people gravitate towards careers that resemble their names. In which case we can deduce that al-Tenderi smashes dead meat for a living and Lord Crap digs out self-same content from sewers. Both good and worthwhile life choices, I'm sure.

[Sheaf Saint]

So now even Dominic Raab thinks that remaining would be the best current option...

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/former-brexit-secretary-dominic-raab-scrap-brexit-rather-than-accept-theresa-may-deal-2018-11

[RedArmy]

How is that relevant?

 

Halal only refers to how the animal is slaughtered. It doesn't in any way impact on welfare standards during rearing and doesn't undercut UK meat suppliers in the way that the American meat would if we are forced to accept their trade terms.

What do you mean how it that relevant? Have I suddenly started talking about a mission to mars, or are you talking about animal welfare you Wally.

 

So it's ok to slit an animal's throat and let it bleed out as long as it's had a nice life? Is that what you're saying?

[RedArmy]

So this suggests two options.

 

You're either deeply committed to animal rights and are a vegan of some years' standing...

 

...or you're an Islamophobic scumbag.

 

Which to choose, which to choose...?

 

Nope, can't decide. Poll please mods.

 

Oh look here comes the resident NPC.

[doddisalegend]

So we now have the UKIP and Tommy Robinson tie-up. Wonder what kippers like Al-Tenderi and LD think.

 

 

Nigel's not happy about it apparently

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-tommy-robinson-ukip-appointed-gerard-batten-grooming-gangs-islam-prison-reform-a8647921.html

[Lord Duckhunter]

I’m a card carrying Tory member, not a “kipper”.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sheaf Saint]

What do you mean how it that relevant? Have I suddenly started talking about a mission to mars, or are you talking about animal welfare you Wally.

 

So it's ok to slit an animal's throat and let it bleed out as long as it's had a nice life? Is that what you're saying?

 

I mean how is that relevant? The way that an animal is slaughtered has no bearing on a discussion about the effect that an influx of cheap, low quality meat from animals that have spent their entire lives in cages no bigger than them and been pumped full of growth hormones will have on the British meat farming industry.

 

Halal meat is raised and reared to the same standards as the rest of the UK and EU currently. The only difference is the way it is slaughtered, and the vast majority of halal meat is stunned before slaughter anyway (due to EU guidelines) so it is no less humane than non-halal.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I’m more concerned with foie gras than halal. However, there’s more chance of going to the moon in a shoe box than that getting banned in the EU. Remainiacs don’t seem to have the same objection to that as they do chlorinated chicken and other American food production.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk