Montegriffo wrote: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:37 amThey are not cutting their own throats to spite the UK. They are protecting their markets from unregulated foodstuffs and cheap imports from nations with poor or non-existent workers rights.
Protecting their markets from superior competition is called cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Poor safety standards in food is not superior competition. It is inferior and unsafe.
Protecting industries from cheap imports made in sweatshops with child labour is not cutting off your nose to spite your face.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Now if you could answer the question, why was May's deal shit?
It's shit and you can see why when you consider the fact that the UK and the US can easily have a completely free trade deal whereby the US does not constantly attempt to overturn UK sovereignty and domestic policies.
You don't need to be a subject of Brussels to have free trade with Germany and France.
It's shit is not an explanation of the failings of the deal.
UK Parliamentary supremacy has remained intact for 40 years.
The EU cannot impose policies on us which Parliament doesn't approve.
This is why we are not in the single currency or part of Schengen.
Montegriffo wrote: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:37 amThey are not cutting their own throats to spite the UK. They are protecting their markets from unregulated foodstuffs and cheap imports from nations with poor or non-existent workers rights.
Protecting their markets from superior competition is called cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Poor safety standards in food is not superior competition. It is inferior and unsafe.
Protecting industries from cheap imports made in sweatshops with child labour is not cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The food safety standards are unnecessary, and cheap imports are good. First you hate tariffs, now you love them when the EU does it, what a loser.
It's shit and you can see why when you consider the fact that the UK and the US can easily have a completely free trade deal whereby the US does not constantly attempt to overturn UK sovereignty and domestic policies.
You don't need to be a subject of Brussels to have free trade with Germany and France.
It's shit is not an explanation of the failings of the deal.
UK Parliamentary supremacy has remained intact for 40 years.
The EU cannot impose policies on us which Parliament doesn't approve.
This is why we are not in the single currency or part of Schengen.
Loss of sovereignty is Brexit lie.
It's not a lie, EU does impose policies on you, just because parliament approves of those concessions doesn't change that.
The EU has no power to impose policies on us.
If they did we would be using the Euro and be part of Schengen.
Parliamentary approval is our guarantee of sovereignty.
Why are you so badly misinformed?
Have you been reading Brexit buses or something?
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
StCapps wrote: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:54 am
Just move to France and abandon the UK, you EU cocksucker, you are a blight on Britain.
Run out of arguments have you?
Still waiting for you to tell me what was wrong with May's deal. I'm pretty convinced you have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm not the one so desperate to see the UK spiral into recession with no-deal.
How about all the hardline Brexiteers fuck off to the US to suck on Trump's dick like Farage did.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Just because you didn't cave on Euro doesn't mean they don't impose anything on you, you just refuse to suck their cock on a thing or two, that doesn't mean you don't swallow their cum on the regular.
StCapps wrote: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:42 am
Protecting their markets from superior competition is called cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Poor safety standards in food is not superior competition. It is inferior and unsafe.
Protecting industries from cheap imports made in sweatshops with child labour is not cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The food safety standards are unnecessary, and cheap imports are good. First you hate tariffs, now you love them when the EU does it, what a loser.
Food safety regulations are not unnecessary.
I don't love tariffs, that's why I don't want a no-deal Brexit.
Do you think that unsafe foods are allowed into the EU so long as tariffs are paid?
cheap imports are good
WTF, are you a globalist now?
I don't know why I'm wasting my time talking to you. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
You can't even tell me why May's deal is shit.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
In 1981, with Directive 81/602/EEC, the EU prohibited the use of substances having a hormonal action for growth promotion in farm animals. Examples for these kind of growth promoters are oestradiol 17ß, testosterone, progesterone, zeranol, trenbolone acetate and melengestrol acetate (MGA).
This prohibition applies to Member States and imports from third countries alike. The legal instrument in force is Directive 96/22/EC as amended by Directive 2003/74/EC.
The former Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health (SCVPH) thoroughly re-evaluated the risks to human health from hormone residues in bovine meat and meat products treated with six hormones for growth promotion. In 1999 this independent scientific advisory body concluded that no acceptable daily intake (ADI) could be established for any of these hormones. For oestradiol 17ß it concluded that there is a substantial body of evidence suggesting that oestradiol 17ß has to be considered as a complete carcinogen (exerts both tumour initiating and tumour promoting effects) and that the data available would not allow a quantitative estimate of the risk. Having examined additional scientific data the SCVPH confirmed its opinion in 2000 and 2002.
Based on this scientific opinion, the Commission proposed to the European Parliament and to the Council to amend Directive 96/22/EC concerning the prohibition of the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists in May 2000.
Fucking scientific experts and their peer-reviewed findings.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
