EU = Loss of Freedom ?

[L.A.]

I was listening to something on Radio 4 the other night and it brought it all back.

In the 1970's Britain used to dump large amounts of untreated sewage into the sea with the result that most British sea-side beaches were unhealthy if not downright dangerous. Everyone knew what the problem was and everyone knew what the solution was, but there was a lack of political will to do anything about it! Then along came the tyrannical Common Market (as it was then) and told us we had to get it sorted, and after a lot of huffing and puffing we finally did, with the result that (although not perfect) we now have some of the cleanest beaches in the world.

Then I remembered  that in the 1990's it became apparent that British car prices were significantly higher than the equivalent car in continental Europe. British dealers were able to make a packet because there was a closed market for UK spec cars. Then along came the EU and said this was illegal. I nipped on an Easyjet to the Netherlands and picked up a brand new peugeot 206 and saved myself over 2 grand. And eventually UK prices dropped to to the point that it wasn't worth importing the car yourself.

More recently there has been the 'roaming' scandal. For years the Mobile phone operators have ripped-off travellers abroad with exorbitant roaming charges, but now the EU have stepped in to limit these to a more moderate level.

These are typical examples of the EU interfering in British Law - are they really so bad? Of course you might take the view that it is every Britain's inalienable right be able to swim in sewage and get ripped-of by car dealers and phone companies - but personally I'd go with the EU every time.


So what about this flood of migrants? you might ask.

Interestingly, I got chatting to a lady at a National Trust property in Lincolnshire a few weeks ago. It was an agricultural area with quite a high number of Eastern Europeans. My wife (who had unfortunately been reading the Daily Mail) asked her about the migrants along the lines: "Isn't it terrible living with so many foreigners" - but apparently it's not. Most are good hard-working people who are keen to integrate. Yes, there have been problems with a small number and services have been strained - but their input has boosted the local economy.

And of course the  provision of health and education services, is very much down to OUR government.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Lapsed,

And of course the  provision of health and education services, is very much down to OUR government.

Amen old chap, the rest of your post is pretty good to.

Gonnagle.

[wigginhall]

Further to LA's point about immigration, I live near plenty of Lithuanians in Norfolk and Lincs, they work hard, they're nice people, and some of them are starting up businesses.   I've heard that in Peterborough, as x number of immigrants move in, unemployment goes down.   Personal touch, my nephew is dating a Lithuanian girl, she is numero uno in my book, a smashing girl.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

My 11 year old daughter thinks the EU is a mixed bag. She asked me this morning which way I was voting in the referendum and I said probably remain, and I then asked her what her view was. Her view was that it depends on what people's priorities are - she said that for example if people care about animal welfare, the EU has refused to stop live transportation of animals for slaughter over long distances, which causes them a lot of unnecessary suffering.

There are EU members who put the economic benefits to member states above animal welfare and have little regard for ethical trading. Apparently despite the European Parliament supporting restricting or ending certain practices - I think possibly this includes transporting EU animals to be slaughtered in non-EU countries, where they have little legal protections against cruelty, the EU Commission refused to introduce any legislation to help stop this.

Not sure where the UK government stands on any of this -as part of TTIP, which Cameron is a supporter of, the US government apparently wanted to exclude certain animal welfare provisions because they would presumably be detrimental to profits.

https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/partner_article/pm-eu-disregarding-its-own-rules-animal-exports

[Udayana]

Yes, there were concerns about USA standards watering down EU regulations on GMOs, pesticides and animal welfare.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33055665

Not sure how much progress has been made in resolving them.

And, as you say, the EU is lagging behind the UK on animal welfare issues generally. However as long as UK farmers are not forced to operate at the lower standards, I can't see how not being a member of the EU will actually improve the welfare of any animals or help the environment. After all, if we are importing lower standard meat now we will probably continue to do so afterwards.

[john]

Nor is exit or remaining likely to end the cruel ritual slaughter/sacrifice  of animals by religious minorities........ Including yours Gabriella ask your daughter what she thinks of that?

[jeremyp]

My 11 year old daughter thinks the EU is a mixed bag. She asked me this morning which way I was voting in the referendum and I said probably remain, and I then asked her what her view was. Her view was that it depends on what people's priorities are - she said that for example if people care about animal welfare, the EU has refused to stop live transportation of animals for slaughter over long distances, which causes them a lot of unnecessary suffering.

Britain has had a positive effect on animal welfare throughout the EU. In general, our standards were historically higher than the rest of the EU. We banned veal crates before the rest of the EU and it is arguable that our lead has influenced the rest.

Your daughter can rest assured that , if Britain leaves the EU, there is absolutely no chance of the British being able to stop transportation of live animals across borders in the EU.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Nor is exit or remaining likely to end the cruel ritual slaughter/sacrifice  of animals by religious minorities........ Including yours Gabriella ask your daughter what she thinks of that?

As far as I know she is fine with eating halal meat where the animal has been stunned prior to slaughter - same as non-halal slaughter. But thanks for your interest in her views. It's good to know that you are enlightened enough to engage with minorities and ask questions rather than making statements based on assumptions.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/may/08/what-does-halal-method-animal-slaughter-involve

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes, there were concerns about USA standards watering down EU regulations on GMOs, pesticides and animal welfare.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33055665

Not sure how much progress has been made in resolving them.

And, as you say, the EU is lagging behind the UK on animal welfare issues generally. However as long as UK farmers are not forced to operate at the lower standards, I can't see how not being a member of the EU will actually improve the welfare of any animals or help the environment. After all, if we are importing lower standard meat now we will probably continue to do so afterwards.

I think she thought animal welfare groups would have more chance of convincing our Parliament to pass laws preventing British animals being shipped out to non-EU countries by any businesses operating in Britain if the British Parliament had autonomy from the EU

Is Britain currently allowed to prevent animals being transported in a manner compliant with EU regulations if it falls below British standards?

[john]

Gabriela

You mean Halal slaughter like this is approved by your daughter? Strange girl, I hope she is naive  rather than uncaring.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/03/halal-slaughterhouse-staff-investigated-alleged-animal-cruelty-bowood-lamb-yorkshire

[Nearly Sane]

Gabriela

You mean Halal slaughter like this is approved by your daughter? Strange girl, I hope she is naive  rather than uncaring.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/03/halal-slaughterhouse-staff-investigated-alleged-animal-cruelty-bowood-lamb-yorkshire

Did you read Gabriella's post and decide to ignore it or just not read it? It's absolute clear about her daughter approving of it after animal is stunned, so why misrepresent it?

[john]

Nearly Sane

Yes I read it but do not believe it.

The whole point of Halal slaughter Jewish or Muslim is that the creature is suspended upside down, a religiously authorised person then ceremoniously slits its throat. Throughout the process it is important that the creature's heart keeps beating to push out all the blood until it dies slowly in pain.

She also made no attempt to justify religious sacrifice widely practised here in the West Mids by Pakistani Muslims to "celebrate" the end of Ramadan. A practice I myself have witnessed.

Clearly you did not bother to read The Guardian article I linked either.

If the Guardian is too hard a read for you try this from The Mirror.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/halal-meat-controversy-unnecessary-cruelty-3523257

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You don't believe the Guardian article I linked to that says 88% of halal slaughter in Britain involves stunning the animal first?

 You also don't believe the Guardian article when it describes animals being hoisted and stuck to drain blood in non-halal slaughter - the meat most people consume in Britain?

Why are you posting links to newspaper articles if you don't believe what is written in them?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But contrary to what many assume, most animals killed by halal methods are stunned before slaughter. FSA estimates suggest that 88% of animals in the UK killed by halal methods were stunned beforehand in a way that many Muslims find religiously acceptable.

In non-halal slaughterhouses, stunned animals are shackled and hoisted above the ground where a slaughterman "sticks" them, cutting their throat or inserting a chest stick close to the heart. Cattle and some sheep and pigs are stunned by a bolt through the brain before being killed.

My Guardian link again:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/may/08/what-does-halal-method-animal-slaughter-involve

[john]

No "pre stunning" here as Muslim men fined for "sacrificing" British sheep.


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/580745/Islam-Muslim-halal-slaughter-farm-UK-Llechrydau-Farm-court

No whitewash either.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Which makes them part of the estimated 12% of halal slaughter where the animal is not stunned before slaughter. Which means it is possible for Muslims to approve of a halal slaughter that includes stunning and disapprove of halal slaughter that does not include stunning.

As various RSPCA reports on their website detail - non-halal slaughter houses have  animals hoisted up prior to slaughter and further there are non-halal slaughter houses where employees have been found to inflict cruelty on livestock during slaughter.

Sounds like your definition of a whitewash are reports that don't take a few horrific incidents and use them to support your prejudices and uninformed generalisations about Muslims.

[Sassy]

If something was good for us, they would not require scare tactics to keep us in.

[Aruntraveller]

If something was good for us, they would not require scare tactics to keep us in.

Whereas the Express's headline about 12 million Turks wanting to come here are not scare tactics - but pure factual reporting 

[ProfessorDavey]

Whereas the Express's headline about 12 million Turks wanting to come here are not scare tactics - but pure factual reporting 

Particularly as the decision on whether they are able to come (i.e. if Turkey joins the EU) is entirely under our control as the UK has a veto.

[Bubbles]

Speaking to people around me, there are quite a number of them who want out. ( I also know quite a few who want in )

It might be quite a close thing.

[Shaker]

To date the polls are pretty much neck and neck, I gather. I was reading this article earlier: http://goo.gl/AXBdJJ which gives a breakdown of poll results so far by sex, age, occupation, education and social grouping. Broadly speaking and at huge risk of over-simplification those who favour Leave are older indigenous men, while Remainers are younger, female, and of a non-indigenous background.

[ProfessorDavey]

To date the polls are pretty much neck and neck, I gather. I was reading this article earlier: http://goo.gl/AXBdJJ which gives a breakdown of poll results so far by sex, age, occupation, education and social grouping. Broadly speaking and at huge risk of over-simplification those who favour Leave are older indigenous men, while Remainers are younger, female, and of a non-indigenous background.

There are some interesting anomalies between on-line polling, which tend to show things neck and neck, and phone polls which are consistently shooing small to sizeable remain leads. Why is unclear, but one or other methodology is likely to turn out to be more accurate than the other.

The other point is that although older people tend to be more supportive of brexit (and typically more likely to vote) more affluent people are more supportive of remain (and also more likely to vote) - how that factors in to turnout effects is anyone's guess.

Interestingly too, the betting markets are often more accurate than the polls in predicting election results - they are strongly suggesting that remain will win.

[Nearly Sane]

It's also worth noting that the betting has moved from Remain being 3/1on, or 5/2 on a month or so ago to 5/1 on.

[Dicky Underpants]

It's also worth noting that the betting has moved from Remain being 3/1on, or 5/2 on a month or so ago to 5/1 on.

Very pro-European in general myself, but wot abart the British fishermen?

Seems like there's recently been some very cavalier (and misleading) peddling figures of expenditure involved, without considering rebates etc.

[Nearly Sane]

Very pro-European in general myself, but wot abart the British fishermen?

Seems like there's recently been some very cavalier (and misleading) peddling figures of expenditure involved, without considering rebates etc.

Not sure what the relevance is to a comment on the odds?