Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

cogito

ilovehouses wrote: »

You compared EU transport conditions with those of countries whose meat you can't wait to eat more of? Those that hormone treat their animals or use epic sized feed lots to fatten animals?

What about those 4,000,000 Australian sheep that spend 50 hours getting to port on a truck, a few weeks in the hold of a ship, a similar truck drive when arriving in the middle-east to have their throats cut without being pre-stunned?

...and you're prattling on about foie gras.

What are you chuntering on about now? 4,000,000 Australian sheep? The true number is just under half that and do you know how many of those ended up in the EU.

Twenty two. Yes, twenty two..

What relevance does non existent Australian meat exports to the EU have to do with Brexit?

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

I didn't avoid admitting anything. I simply asked how much we do send.

You make it sound like we pay the eu a tithe for existing. We do contribute a fair share for running the eu.

Our contributions are a long way from 350m, thus the bus is a lie. No?

Enterprise_1701C

I think the animal welfare standards of the eu are a bit complicated to say the least, and countries like Spain just ignore what they want to ignore.

In this country everything is allowed unless it is against the law. The eu seem to have it backwards, things have to be allowed by law, so you can't do something that is not mentioned in their dictats.

This is part of our lack of our compatibility, our legal systems are totally different.

wunferall

cogito wrote: »

What are you chuntering on about now? 4,000,000 Australian sheep? The true number is just under half that and do you know how many of those ended up in the EU.

Twenty two. Yes, twenty two..

What relevance does non existent Australian meat exports to the EU have to do with Brexit?

Not a lot. It's the usual "try anything to get away from the fact that I was wrong" bluster. That and the Brexit Impact Committee being very quiet yet again I suppose.

That some think the EU are global leaders in animal welfare when it's the UK's ongoing efforts which have dragged them up to their still-poor position is ridiculous, especially in the face of ongoing UK-specific ideas to further improve UK standards. The UK's proposed new Animal Welfare Bill is still being worked-upon.
https://www.soilassociation.org/news/2018/february/02/an-opportunity-to-be-a-world-leader-in-animal-welfare-standards/

Obviously some just don't like being shown that the EU is not the panacea they imagine it to be. What a surprise that is, to no-one in this thread.

Herzlos

If the .uk government is trying to increase animal welfare standards, why did it vote against animals being regarded as sentient? I asked a few pages ago but was ignored.

Does anyone really think Mays government has any interest in improving animal welfare standards?

mayonnaise

What's up with the forum layout?
All squeezed in the middle, with oodles of space on both sides on my elitist remoaner 24 inch HD display....

wunferall

Herzlos wrote: »

If the .uk government is trying to increase animal welfare standards, why did it vote against animals being regarded as sentient? I asked a few pages ago but was ignored.

Does anyone really think Mays government has any interest in improving animal welfare standards?

You, ignored? I really can't imagine why. Although your trying to peddle fake news as in that post would do it, sure enough.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-42116299/animal-sentience-social-media-reaction-to-fake-news-claims

wunferall

mayonnaise wrote: »

What's up with the forum layout?
All squeezed in the middle, with oodles of space on both sides on my elitist remoaner 24 inch HD display....

Welcome to these forums where some remainers are so devout in their anti-Brexit delusions that they endow their household items with the ability to voice supporting beliefs too.




My monitor has no opinion. My dog though . . . . . .

Enterprise_1701C

Herzlos wrote: »

If the .uk government is trying to increase animal welfare standards, why did it vote against animals being regarded as sentient? I asked a few pages ago but was ignored.

Does anyone really think Mays government has any interest in improving animal welfare standards?

Many of the reports did miss a very specific but very important detail of what happened. Nobody voted that animals aren't sentient, because that wasn't ever up for a vote. Instead, they didn't vote that they were. A number of stories gave a misleading impression by eliding that distinction.

Herzlos

wunferall wrote: »

You, ignored? I really can't imagine why. Although your trying to peddle fake news as in that post would do it, sure enough.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-42116299/animal-sentience-social-media-reaction-to-fake-news-claims

Now that's interesting. Supposedly the clause on animal sentience was removed for streamlining as it's covered in .uk law ready* and not because the Tories think animals don't feel pain. So I guess I'm at least partially wrong. I can't be bothered finding the parliamentary transcripts to see how wrong.

*I'd have thought it'd have been more streamlined to have just left it in.