
On the face of it looks like an example of what can be made better outside of the eu.
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 12:15, Reply)

Parliament can, and does, set more demanding standards than required by the EU.
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 12:20, Reply)

This could pave the way to a ban on live exports which is not possible under eu law.
But my admittedly clumsy point was that rather than blindly incorporate eu law we can give it a bit of a polish.
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 12:26, Reply)

So we'll just have to suck up all the EU regs but now we'll have no say at all in crafting them
Takin' back control
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 12:43, Reply)

[edit] Oh you mean that bit of bollocks may had to come up with as a face saver to the eu? Who realised using N.I as a bargaining chip is a bloody silly thing to do and we can only work out the final solution of the border when we know what the trading situation is.
It's not legally binding and only applies if the UK and Ireland can't agree a deal on how to handle the border.
I know you and yours have suddenly clutched onto this little nugget as a hope we're all going to stay BFF with the eu. But it's not going to happen.
It's all going to be ok so long as nobody panics and decides to make it legally binding and hold up trade talks until it is.
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 13:27, Reply)

Any EU member that wants to enact legislature that might impede inter-EU trade must first get permission from the EU to do so.
If, for example, Britain would want to ban the sale of certain pesticides that are legal to use elsewhere in the EU, any EU member that manufactures it could veto it.
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 13:19, Reply)

If we can get past the hypocrisy 'I love animals and like cheap meat' etc.
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 13:09, Reply)

"We are a nation of animal l-ooh, look, that chicken is only £2.99!!"
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 13:13, Reply)

( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 16:07, Reply)

We managed it perfectly happily in the past.
I give it 2 weeks before meat eaters give up on a veggie diet and google "how to wring a chickens neck".
Beef is different, those buggers are strong.
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 13:49, Reply)

An amusingly bankrupt argument, often used by religious extremists.
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 14:27, Reply)

It's not that bad.
Worst bit is having to push the poos out of their arse from the inside out as you gut them.
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 14:36, Reply)

I've seen a lifetimes worth of slowly dying rodents.
The tiny bunnies scream the place down.
I suppose it comes down to individual capacity for empathy v societal pressures.
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 14:44, Reply)

If your cat was to bring an animal in obviously in pain but past saving what would you do?
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 15:02, Reply)

An axe or hammer can be required on occasion.
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 15:21, Reply)

Killing an animal for food doesn't make you some kind of emotionally stunted psychopath. I think some humans are trying to moralise themselves to the point they convinced themselves they are no longer part of the animal kingdom.
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 15:27, Reply)

Conversely, modern humans have indeed seen themselves as above the other animals, allowing greater and greater industrialisation of farming.
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 15:48, Reply)

The bit where humans transition from the Mesolithic to the neolithic in Europe is fascinating. Some archaeologists think that farming spread east from persia very slowly across the world and headed west, as populations grew hunting become unsustainable and populations had to farm to support the number of mouths to feed and there was a lot of competition over land from the traditional hunters' territories getting pushed back by the bloomin forrins coming over from the continent with their new fangled ways.
The surprising bit is though that diets and health actually worsened in the short term because the farmed diet was a lot less varied.
I think we're seeing the inevitable consequence of population growth that the carbon footprint associated with modern meat farming isn't sustainable.
Eventually we'll conclude too late that there are just too many people on the planet.
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 16:40, Reply)

I mean, it's simply obvious. Sure it can be shown with complicated science and mathematical projections, but really you just have to meet a few ordinary people and it should occur to you.
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 19:29, Reply)

conflict between nomadic herdsmen and settled farmers. It really does go back that far.
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 19:35, Reply)

The rest I blame on 'marketing'.
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 21:53, Reply)

The rest of the world just accepts it as part of life if you're going to eat meat.
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 14:36, Reply)

Mass consumption of large quantities of meat is largely a recent western phenomena.
Consumption of meat by people who have few options isn't really the problem.
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 14:48, Reply)

Also since you brought religion into it...
The rest of the world just accepts it as part of life if you're going to eat meat.
Your original point was that people wouldn't eat meat if they had to participate in the slaughter.
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 15:00, Reply)

See also FGM, child brides, witchcraft, Trump, ethnic cleansing etc.
People HERE would eat less meat.
Anyway, this is way too serious for B3ta.
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 15:25, Reply)

Would be more humane than me trying to mash a chickens head in with a brick.
( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 16:07, Reply)

( , Tue 12 Dec 2017, 14:09, Reply)