The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[snowychap]

Just now, Enda said:

Yep, good example of EU's health and safety regulations not being good enough.

(Or an example of a fairly big hubhub over nothing, "it's only a small bit of horse meat", "we need less red tape", depending on your view.)

I think I'm a mixture of both camps (but I think the pork issue caused more of a problem?).

I was just pointing out the event but perhaps it was more about people along the way avoiding the regulations that were in place (though that's obviously not an argument in favour of getting rid of the regulations).

[peterms]

2 hours ago, Enda said:

Yep, good example of EU's health and safety regulations not being good enough.

(Or an example of a fairly big hubhub over nothing, "it's only a small bit of horse meat", "we need less red tape", depending on your view.)

That whole story became quite confused.

Some papers covered it on the basis of "We're eating horse meat, bleurgh", which was always a silly distraction.  Others identified the fraud as the issue.

The real problem is the lack of control over the food chain.  There are very organised gangs selling low quality, sometimes decaying meat into the processing industry, where it ends up being disguised, mislabelled, and foisted on people who think they are buying something else.

We need more and better regulation, many more inspectors, and far tougher action against the criminals involved.

Instead of which we have numbnuts like the three stooges telling us we need to throw off the shackles of oppressive bureaucracy.  Because that way, freedom lies.  Utter f***wits.

[villakram]

Regulation is the enemy of profit! The rich want more, much as it ever was.

[Awol]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

The reality of that is a move towards laxer control on all kinds from food hygiene, to GM, to pesticides and air quality and water quality. Not immediately, but over time.

I'm not aware of any evidence (from the actual Government) to back this up, nevertheless saying it will get you untold cheers from the VT cheap seats.

I'm all for knocking the Tories around, but let's do it on the basis of actual evidence, not what some people want to believe they will do.

[HanoiVillan]

10 hours ago, snowychap said:

On a serious note, wasn't the horse meat scandal a european thing?

Absolutely. 

But that's the point isn't it. It was a scandal, which led to several people receiving jail time IIRC. What I want, ultimately, is to avoid the normalisation process which sees events like these changing from scandalous to standard industrial practice. 

[chrisp65]

9 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Absolutely. 

But that's the point isn't it. It was a scandal, which led to several people receiving jail time IIRC. What I want, ultimately, is to avoid the normalisation process which sees events like these changing from scandalous to standard industrial practice. 

bahh! was going to say the same thing.

Stupid levels of regulation mean that sort of thing is not allowed. It can't 100% legislate for dimwits and criminals.

As per the 'what laws should be repealed?' question earlier, I'd be intrigued to know what swathes of regulation people want binned once we are free of the tyranny.

There could be hundreds I guess. But does anyone have a 'top ten'? Or 2 or 3? Something that will make people think a year later 'omg we are sooo much better off now business doesn't have to comply with...'

Not a trap, would be interesting to see how 'big' a thing people want de regulated. 

 

[blandy]

9 hours ago, Awol said:

I'm not aware of any evidence (from the actual Government) to back this up, nevertheless saying it will get you untold cheers from the VT cheap seats.

I'm all for knocking the Tories around, but let's do it on the basis of actual evidence, not what some people want to believe they will do.

Blimey, Jon. You must have missed the deluge of messages from people including the likes of boris Johnson, Liam fox, David Davies etc. saying get rid of EU red tape over and over again. I think as these folks are the government's 3 ministers responsible for the whole brexit stuff, that this would therefore constitute actual evidence, and isn't me making it up because it's what I want to believe or to get a cheer.

Quote

The choice in the referendum should be between exit, which offers opportunities for growth greater than we currently enjoy, or a radically reformed Europe in which Britain can shed the job-destroying red tape

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2597954/Exit-Europe-fear-DAVID-DAVIS-senior-Tory-say-quitting-EU-good-Britain-spark-great-national-revival.html

 there's loads more on google or bing. I'm not making it up

[darrenm]

7 hours ago, Awol said:

I'm not aware of any evidence (from the actual Government) to back this up, nevertheless saying it will get you untold cheers from the VT cheap seats.

I'm all for knocking the Tories around, but let's do it on the basis of actual evidence, not what some people want to believe they will do.

Don't understand who are in the VT cheap seats?

[HanoiVillan]

Several key Brexit figures wrote a book called 'Britannia Unchained', the entire thesis of which was that we should a] leave the EU because b] it would allow us to have a 'bonfire of red tape'. This is hardly a conspiracy theory. 

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Blimey, Jon. You must have missed the deluge of messages from people including the likes of boris Johnson, Liam fox, David Davies etc. saying get rid of EU red tape over and over again. I think as these folks are the government's 3 ministers responsible for the whole brexit stuff, that this would therefore constitute actual evidence, and isn't me making it up because it's what I want to believe or to get a cheer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2597954/Exit-Europe-fear-DAVID-DAVIS-senior-Tory-say-quitting-EU-good-Britain-spark-great-national-revival.html

 there's loads more on google or bing. I'm not making it up

An example from the food industry is given here.

Because of cuts to the food regulatory body, they are turning to self-regulation, allowing the food industry to have more influence.  Staggeringly, they are allowing Tesco to pilot a new approach.  Tesco, one of the key players in Horsegate.  Tesco, stocker of diseased chickens.  Tesco, whose directors are being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office.

This is what is happening already, before we even get close to the promised land of sweeping away red tape.

 

Quote

It’s nearly four years since the horsemeat scandal broke, yet for everyone in the food supply chain, Horsegate is still etched in the memory, with Tesco and its horsemeat burgers in particular an unfortunate and abiding image.

So imagine the irony of the FSA coming to Tesco to pilot a new food safety system. In a way, the fact that the FSA thinks it can even broach this idea shows just how far supermarkets have raised their game since Horsegate. Be it moves on testing for horsemeat or stepping up the fight against campylobacter, retailers are in a much better place.

But it also demonstrates just how desperately short of resources the FSA and the local authorities it relies on have become. It is plainly unfit to handle anything like its existing workload, which it estimates at around 350,000 inspections every year.

In an exclusive interview this week, its new chair Heather Hancock admits people would be shocked if they realised how scant the resources of local inspectors have become. She reveals that nationwide schemes such as the Scores on the Doors hygiene inspections are simply grinding to a halt because there are not enough feet on the ground.

And, as counterintuitive as it sounds, she believes it makes better sense to tap into the technology and supply chain knowledge of what she terms the “super food companies” (like Tesco) to essentially self regulate, while concentrating on the rogue traders threatening the reputation of the industry.

But it’s going to be very difficult for the FSA to come up with a new system without giving the impression that the fox has been put in charge of the henhouse, and there will be real concern the FSA no longer has the teeth to be a strong independent force of its own. Even this week there have been calls at the Labour Party conference for the FSA to be, ahem, beefed up.

The latest development suggests a very different type of body based on light touch, low red tape regulation, while working closely with the private sector. Will politicians - and the public - stomach it?

As for the direction of travel, it's very clear from everything the tories say and do.  See for example the new deregulatory drive announced by Sajeed Javed in July.

There really is no basis at all for doubting that they want to reduce regulation.  They say so, and they are doing it.  How can anyone reasonably question that they mean it?

[snowychap]

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Absolutely. 

But that's the point isn't it. It was a scandal, which led to several people receiving jail time IIRC. What I want, ultimately, is to avoid the normalisation process which sees events like these changing from scandalous to standard industrial practice. 

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

bahh! was going to say the same thing.

Stupid levels of regulation mean that sort of thing is not allowed. It can't 100% legislate for dimwits and criminals.

Well what is the point both of you are making in relation to the EU?

You both appear to be rounding on my post about an event taking place and reading in to it some tosh about normalization.

[mockingbird_franklin]

2 hours ago, darrenm said:

Don't understand who are in the VT cheap seats?

anyone who has an opinion Awol disagrees with, or can't understand their discussion points perhaps?

 

[tonyh29]

1 minute ago, mockingbird_franklin said:

anyone who has an opinion Awol disagrees with, or can't understand their discussion points perhaps?

 

I think its more the sycophants who auto like anything that basically says **** the Tories 

 

 

[choffer]

10 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

**** the Tories 

Edited October 14, 2016 by choffer

[mockingbird_franklin]

4 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

bahh! was going to say the same thing.

Stupid levels of regulation mean that sort of thing is not allowed. It can't 100% legislate for dimwits and criminals.

As per the 'what laws should be repealed?' question earlier, I'd be intrigued to know what swathes of regulation people want binned once we are free of the tyranny.

There could be hundreds I guess. But does anyone have a 'top ten'? Or 2 or 3? Something that will make people think a year later 'omg we are sooo much better off now business doesn't have to comply with...'

Not a trap, would be interesting to see how 'big' a thing people want de regulated. 

 

from the mouths of the conservatives in control of what will happen the ones that seem most important for them to burn are;

any ones that protect workers rights, to things like fair contracts, holidays, sick pay, grievence procedures and general unfair treatment.

Things that protect the vunerable in society, things like human rights etc.

 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2016 by mockingbird_franklin

[mockingbird_franklin]

15 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I think its more those appreciating the effort of the sensible folks who auto question and point out the flaws with nearly anything the Tories do  

 

fixed it for you.

Edited October 14, 2016 by mockingbird_franklin

[chrisp65]

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

Well what is the point both of you are making in relation to the EU?

You both appear to be rounding on my post about an event taking place and reading in to it some tosh about normalization.

I wasn't rounding on your post snowy. I was just trying to kind of back up a point about EU legislation isn't perfect, people will always break laws. But having a law broken, discovered and rectified would appear to me a whole world better than the ultra free economy where we just kinda trust big business wouldn't harm its customers in the pursuit of an extra penny profit.

There is a knee jerk in some quarters that by definition, regulation must be a bad thing.

 

[HanoiVillan]

3 hours ago, snowychap said:

Well what is the point both of you are making in relation to the EU?

You both appear to be rounding on my post about an event taking place and reading in to it some tosh about normalization.

You seem to be reading anger into my post that just wasn't there. 

I'm following on from the discussion, mentioned previously, that one of the main reasons the EU hasn't achieved a free trade deal with a nation like India is because of the gap in regulatory standards. The Brexit-supporting position seems to be, basically, that we're being held back by a ton of pesky red tape. My counter to that is that regulation is, broadly speaking, a good thing, and that while regulations can of course be found that are superfluous, or even perverse in their effects, that regulation is generally of benefit to consumers and I'm rather glad it exists, as a whole. 

The relevance of horsemeat to this is that similar practices are endemic in the American meat-processing industry, where regulatory standards are far laxer. Your post pointed out that, nevertheless, the horsemeat scandal happened in the EU. I concede the point, but stress that it was, at least, a scandal, and that - here is where my post stops addressing yours and makes a separate point - I don't want lax regulation of food products in the future. This is a pressing concern because - coming full circle - of the enthusiasm of Brexit supporters for a 'bonfire of red tape'. 

[Enda]

4 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

You seem to be reading anger into my post that just wasn't there. 

I'm following on from the discussion, mentioned previously, that one of the main reasons the EU hasn't achieved a free trade deal with a nation like India is because of the gap in regulatory standards. The Brexit-supporting position seems to be, basically, that we're being held back by a ton of pesky red tape. My counter to that is that regulation is, broadly speaking, a good thing, and that while regulations can of course be found that are superfluous, or even perverse in their effects, that regulation is generally of benefit to consumers and I'm rather glad it exists, as a whole. 

The relevance of horsemeat to this is that similar practices are endemic in the American meat-processing industry, where regulatory standards are far laxer. Your post pointed out that, nevertheless, the horsemeat scandal happened in the EU. I concede the point, but stress that it was, at least, a scandal, and that - here is where my post stops addressing yours and makes a separate point - I don't want lax regulation of food products in the future. This is a pressing concern because - coming full circle - of the enthusiasm of Brexit supporters for a 'bonfire of red tape'. 

With an inflammatory post like that, clearly you're just a sycophant taking a pop at Sir Boris.

[Davkaus]

A Tory Councillor has started a petition to make it a crime to support the UK being in the EU. 

I particularly like the "imagine" bit, because if you're going to criminalise expressing political views, you may as well go full thought-police as well.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/168882

Quote

The Treason Felony Act be amended to include the following offences: 
'To imagine, devise, promote, work, or encourage others, to support UK becoming a member of the European Union; 
- To conspire with foreign powers to make the UK, or part of the UK, become a member of the EU.'