3 ms·
> Option (3) seems pretty reasonable to me. Only if you live in a fantasy world. The EU outright did not want this as a "solution" so they rejected it. The UK
by scott_w 4y ago
> Option (3) seems pretty reasonable to me.
Only if you live in a fantasy world. The EU outright did not want this as a "solution" so they rejected it. The UK is actually doing something like this at this very moment. The result? We're currently allowing dangerous food into the country.
Your descriptions of options 1 and 2 are total nonsense from the moment you use the word "sovereignty." Nobody's sovereignty is violated by making an agreement, any more than your freedom is violated when you abide by the terms of a contract you freely agreed.
- csense 4y ago> We're currently allowing dangerous food into the country. I would personally eat food that passes UK regulations (but not EU regulations), or EU regulations (but not UK regulations). Are there reports of increased food poisoning attributed to Brexit? (I'm thinking along the lines of either an individual incident report saying "if only this meat had been inspected, it would have been pulled, and these people wouldn't have gotten sick," or a statistical study based on e.g. ER visits per capita for food poisoning symptoms.) If there's no evidence of people actually getting sick, calling such food "dangerous" seems like fearmongering.
- scott_w 4y ago> I would personally eat food that passes UK regulations (but not EU regulations), or EU regulations (but not UK regulations). The food has not passed either UK or EU standards checks. EU health and customs bodies do not check food destined for the UK market. And neither do the UK equivalents. Here is the newspaper report where the spot check was carried out: https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dover/news/uk-risks-food-safety-catastrophe-without-proper-border-che-275538/ https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dover/news/uk-risks-food-safety... So yes, there is evidence that the food is dangerous.