Did you shit your pants so violently that you bled, @WorzelScummage?
If not, I’d like you to downgrade your assessment of “bloody scary”.
Can we call this scary?
The country managed to feed itself prior to 1973. There are cheaper food alternatives than a continent mandated Waitrose. True stories.
If we can just snap our fingers and change all the needed land and people’s careers on the day, nothing to worry about. If we can’t, we have a problem.
Then you have to consider the 20%population growth since then, means the land might have housing on it.
It’s all well and good talking about the past, but it’s the future that needs feeding and we are not prepared.
They’ve laid the ground work(none) to force us into an American lack of standards.
1 Like
The only reason that this is a problem is because we buy most of our food from Europe, and depending on how messy the divorce gets, we might not want to do that anymore.
Frankly, we can buy our food from somewhere else instead.
I do not understand where your demand for insta-autarky comes from.
I haven’t demanded insta-aurtarky, i’ve said without it we have a problem.
Yes, we can buy from elsewhere. Have deals been done(time is running out)?
This is the issue for me.
Which you ignored.
Does it not bother you that they will drop standards, purely for profit(at the top only)?
You’re allowed to be a leaver and at the same time think it’s being handled atrociously, maybe even be concerned that the poor will be forced to eat even more carcinogenic shit, because its all that’s available to them.
When was your last serious* post on this subject?
* By serious, I mean having a cogent opinion of your own and not regurgitating something you’ve read in a vain attempt to wind someone up.
Would you like any help constructing a killer anti-democrat argument? I don’t even believe in your cause, but feel I could do a better job representing it.
I only ignored it because once again, it’s projections vs actuals, init?
And once again, worst possible doom porn scenario that is so filthy you could only wank it off with someone else’s.
You believe that this isn’t what they are planning?
The party of “the bonfire of red-tape”, that even put in regulations, that for every new regulation 3 had to be dropped.
I say they plan to slash food standards regulations. Want a bet?
Who are they?
The only thing I can see they planning is a deal so fucking terrible that no one will want to leave.
Do you think they ever wanted a fucking referendum, or want your opinion on agriculture, employment rights, fishing or whether or not we accept new “counties”?
The answer was in my post.
Food standards. Better/same/worse. What do you think?
Oh aye, you mean the party once led by a man not planning for a Leave outcome? The party that is now led by a former Remainer?
The party that forbade the civil service from planning for Leave, or No Deal?
I think they might have comported themselves differently and given themselves a shitload of an easier time by just going for this from the start.
1 Like
Yes, but as i expect us to leave(you still doubt?), i’m wondering why we’re apparently so unprepared, although Fox has made a lot of journeys to the US, which means only one thing.
Everyone still arguing about who was right, whilst ignoring the work/planning needed, now means we’re at the mercy of the most unscrupulous(outside and in).
If the PM gets her plan through, that is not leaving. People on all sides of the house agree with that.
Take a look at most of the front pages. The Guardian and the Indy could have just headlined the vast majority of their stories with “Stop Brexit”.
The Establishment has been shitting itself from the start on this one.
You are yet to come up with a decent argument for leave, and you’ve had nearly 3 years, so I very much doubt you could.
I thought labour were going to vote against and the DUP plus a fair few tories are against it(think i read claims of 70). Even the EU are against it, so surely it’ll be leave, no deal(bit late for anything else).
Front pages are generally full of shit.
The real establishment(city) are desperate to leave, because of the laws being introduced the very next day. I don’t think there’s any doubt we’ll leave
Why anti-democrat?
We could start with wanting to belong to an organisation that tried to build unaccountable power into its constitution in 2006, and then implemented those provisions anyway when the French and the Dutch electorates told them to do one.
We could tuck into the fact that you’re supporting an organisation that has taken several key areas of policy away from the British government, and by extension, away from the British voter.
Away from British voters, we could look at the EU’s attitude toward self-determination elsewhere, such as the reaction to the Catalan insurrection. It’s an apt demonstration of how the EU views self-determination, something we’ve decided on with the Brexit vote. Self-determination is anathema to the European Union, just as it was to the British Empire. The EU upheld extradition requests, even if the Catalan ringleaders were technically brought in under other charges.
We’ll finish up on the European Parliament, an organisation which you implicitly support. Quite why, I’ll never know. It’s textbook irony. Created to bestow the veneer of democratic legitimacy, it’s a gigantic yes or no shop, with no power to direct policy. It’s greatest achievement on the world stage is giving Nigel Farage the platform he needed to destroy Britain’s membership of the EU.
Nonsense. You’re now at the stage where you’re quite provably mendacious, especially with Discourse’s lovely infinite scroll feature.
It’s all there, from expanding the power of the British voter, raising wages, lowering house prices and enabling Corbyn-inspired public ownership projects. You may not agree with these positions, but to say that they’ve not been put forward is a lie. Not to concede that some of these predictions, such as wage rises or house price drops, have already come to pass shows a lack of comprehension and/or class.