If there was another EU referendum Part 2

I assume you are saying that Jalima from your position of being an expert in trade negotiations?
It's out on social media now, oh dear.

We await your expert opinions with bated breath, then, Jalima

I'm still negotiating.
Back in a few years.

A few years, Jalima

I thought it was all terribly easy and would be in place by 30th March 2019.

Why do so many posters do a disservice to the British people:
Brexit will bring Chlorinate Chicken, hormone pumped beef diseasd lamb, double headed fish.

Goodness those of you who post this stuff will you accept this?
I certainly wouldnt and I think we have enough intellegence as a society only to accept what we want.
And as i doubt many Americans die of ' death by Chlorine dipped chicken'. And Australians spontaneously change sex because of hormone infused burgers, there may be those in our community who may want this food.

Although I have no wish to eat beef which has been subjected to hormonal growth promotants, I have to say that not all Australian beef has received this treatment, in fact much less than 50%.

Their use is very strictly controlled and monitored in Australia and has been for very many years.

However, if we are to enter into trade agreements with countries that use such hormones or bleaching of chickens, we must make it clear that our food standards will not accept such products.

Quite, Jalima, our government should make it clear that our food standards will not be compromised., but will they? Remember Mad Cow Disease?

jalima
That's what most remainers seem to have missed. If you want to trade with us, these are our standards. Simples

Remember Mad Cow Disease?
I certainly do Greta - and that's a reason why we cannot donate blood in Australia.

I also remember EU beef which was in fact horse meat.

^ our government should make it clear that our food standards will not be compromised.^

Whether we manage to achieve this depends on who wants the deal most, I think.

Although I want to see a People's Vote when the terms of the "Deal" are known, with the option of remaining in the EU, I am not optimistic that our democracy could not again be subverted, as it was two years ago, by the combined efforts of foreign billionaires and tax exiles controlling a large chunk of our media, the dark forces operating on social media and the lies and cheating of the Leave campaign.

However, every now and again, there is a glimmer of hope, such as this heartfelt plea from Alex of Edinburgh, who voted Leave, but now says "We need to end this madness now"

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsjLptWQosY

There were lies on both sides of the campaign varian and IMO the desire for another vote in the hope it will over turn the result, is a prime example of efforts to subvert our democracy.

There may have been lies on both sides but there was illegality on the Leave side

'Democracy' has already been shown to be subverted. Leavers might be happy with that becsuse it got them the result they wanted but Remainers hsve every right to cry 'foul'

To stick to a result obtsined by cheating shows contempt for democracy.

A shadowy global operation involving big data, billionaire friends of Trump and the disparate forces of the Leave campaign influenced the result of the EU referendum. As Britain heads to the polls again, is our electoral process still fit for purpose?

www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy

*Opinion of the Scientific Panel on food additives, flavourings, processing aids and materials in contact with food (AFC) on a request from the Commission related to
treatment of poultry carcasses with chlorine dioxide, acidified sodium chlorite, trisodium phosphate and peroxyacids*

Question Nº EFSA Q-2005-002 Adopted on 6 December 2005

SUMMARY
The Commission [EU] has asked EFSA to update the previous opinion expressed by the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating to Public Health (SCVPH) on 14-15 April 2003 with regard to the toxicological risks to public health from possible reaction products (e.g. semicarbazide) of chlorine dioxide, acidified sodium chlorite, trisodium phosphate and peroxyacids when applied on poultry carcasses.

When examining the possibility for reaction products, no halomethanes have been reported to be formed in treatments with chlorine dioxide in water. No chlorinated organics have been found after treatments of poultry carcasses with acidified sodium chlorite. No detectable effects on the oxidation status of fatty acids in poultry carcasses were reported following treatment with peroxyacids. Furthermore, semicarbazide was not detected (limit of detection of 1 microgram/kg) in laboratory tests on poultry carcasses after treatment by immersion with &acidified sodium chlorite*. *The Panel notes that the initial health concerns about semicarbazide are no longer relevant^*. ^As set out in previous EFSA opinion, new data showed that semicarbazide is not genotoxic in vivo.
Based on conservative estimates of poultry consumption in European adults, the Panel estimated potential exposure to residues arising from these treatments.
On the basis of available data and taking into account that processing of poultry carcasses (washing, cooking) would take place before consumption, the Panel considers that treatment with trisodium phosphate, acidified sodium chlorite, **chlorine dioxide, or peroxyacid solutions, *under the described conditions of use, would be of no safety concern*.
The Panel notes that spraying of poultry carcasses with antimicrobials, by comparison to dipping and immersion treatments, will reduce the exposure to residues and by-products that might arise.
The Panel stresses that the use of antimicrobial solutions does not replace the need for good hygienic practices during processing of poultry carcasses, particularly during handling, and also stresses the need to replace regularly the water of chiller baths.
www.efsa.eu.int/science/catindex_en.html
Poultry treatment with antimicrobials The EFSA Journal (2005) 297, p.2 of 27

efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2006.297

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Panel emphasises that its up-date of the previous opinion of the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating to Public Health (SCVPH) with regard to toxicological risks to public health of residues and possible reaction products arising from the use of the antimicrobial substances only concerns the described conditions of use. The Panel also took into consideration that processing of poultry carcasses (washing, cooking) would take place before consumption. Trisodium phosphate*: On the basis of the available data, the Panel considers that treatment of poultry carcasses with trisodium phosphate as described is *of no safety concern. The Panel considers that the rapid dissociation of trisodium phosphate into its constituent ions (Na+ and PO43-) and their relatively low chemical reactivity make it very unlikely that by-products of toxicological relevance are formed after this treatment. There is no possibility of formation of semicarbazide from the use of trisodium phosphate. Acidified sodium chlorite*: On the basis of available data, the Panel considers that treatment of poultry carcasses with acidified sodium chlorite as described is of *no safety concern. No chlorinated organics have been found upon treatment of poultry carcasses with acidified chlorite. Furthermore, potential semicarbazide levels from this treatment were below the limit of quantification of the analytical method (≤ 1 µg/kg) and would therefore be of no safety concern. Chlorine dioxide*: In contrast to the situation with acidified sodium chlorite, no specific data on chlorine dioxide by-products formation from poultry proteins or lipids were available to the Panel. Nevertheless, the Panel notes that *chlorine dioxide is a less aggressive oxidant than acidified sodium chlorite and that it is used in lower concentration. Therefore, the Panel assumes chlorine dioxide will not significantly affect poultry lipids. In the case of potential chlorination of amino acids, aromatic amino acids constitute the preferential target but these amino acids are absent in identified peptides in poultry. Furthermore, the concentration of free aromatic amino acids in poultry is very low. The Panel considers that the available data on the treatment of poultry carcasses with chlorine dioxide does not indicate a safety concern. Further data might be needed to confirm that chlorinated compounds are not generated to a significant extent. Peroxyacids: On the basis of available data, the Panel considers that treatment of poultry carcasses with peroxyacids as described is of no safety concern. No detectable effects on the oxidation status of fatty acids or fatty acid profiles in poultry carcasses were reported following treatment with peroxyacids. There is no possibility of formation of semicarbazide from the use of peroxyacids.
Poultry treatment with antimicrobials The EFSA Journal (2005) 297, p.21 of 27
General: The Panel notes that the initial health concerns about semicarbazide are no longer relevant. As set out in the EFSA opinion on semicarbazide (EFSA, 2005), new data showed that semicarbazide is not genotoxic in vivo. Overall the Panel notes that since poultry carcasses absorb water, by comparison to dipping and immersion in repeatedly used water of chiller baths, spraying will reduce the exposure to residues and by-products that might arise from these treatments. The Panel stresses that the use of antimicrobial solutions does not replace the need for good hygienic practices during processing of poultry carcasses, particularly during handling, and also stresses the need to replace regularly the water of chiller baths.

Perhaps the facts from the EFSA will help the discussion. We eat treated meat and chicken now. A process used by the meat and poultry industries considered safe by the ESFA. Click on the link for more.

Two National votes:
Cross party referendum
Party Political General Election

Results: Referendum cross party majority vote to Leave the EU.

Results: General Election both Government and Opposition Party's stood for re-election on a Pro Brexit mandate. We ow have a Government and Opposition who were put into Parliament on a Brexit mandate.

The General Election confirmed the Referendum decision to honour the majority vote to Leave the EU. Two votes saying Leave the EU.

Little noticed in Westminster but sterling is struggling. Lowest level against the dollar for a year. Over the last month lost value against every major currency. That's despite an interest rate rise. Markets slowly getting the message that prospect of no deal is a serious one. Nothing much has been said about the seriously sinking pound....BOE talk of lowering interest rates again because of Brexit.

Varian you make our UK Democratic system sound like we are a corrupt Banana Republic. Not sure where you live, but where I live our Country looks pretty damn good to me and those who get on with their everyday lives in peace and security, with Health care, and benefit systems, a State Pension, Child Benefits, Housing and Council Tax paid if people are in great need. Not perfect systems but a hell of a lot better than most. A Country open to freedom of speech, as we all see from the way we have and are debating Brexit. Even when our Democracy is being threatened by subversive activity to create anarchy, we are still bothering to listen to the lies, the misinterpretations, the deliberately misleading scaremongering, anti British, anti Democracy propaganda. No one is being thrown in jail, or their voices suppressed, we are all allowed to be as obnoxious as we wish within the Law. How great a Country is that!

crystaltipps, didn't you expect these fluctuations? The BOE will adjust and correct that is their job. Only last week the BOE Stress Test, showed that the Banking system can cope with the very worst scenario's that they threw at their modelling programme, showing that we are ready for anything. Expect the best, and prepare for the worst, that is good Governance, by our Government and the BOE.

You ask: "Is our electoral process fit for purpose."

Well obviously it is not fit for the purposes of the Remain campaign's or as they are now self styling as Pro Europe.

If it doesn't work for me change it, is the Philosophy of the Pro Europe groups. Blatant anarchistic behaviour. The majority vote system is a tried and proven effective Democracy.

It is disingenuous to claim that everyone who voted Labour or Tory in the GE voted for any kind of brexit- let alone a hard brexit or a no deal brexit.

In our elections people vote for many reasons, mostly negative reasons. You might vote Tory because you hate Jeremy Corbyn, you might vote Labour because you hate Theresa May. You might actually be persuaded by promises to spend more money on things which matter to you, or promises not to raise taxes or cut immigration to the "tens of thousands". You might be the kind of voter who would never dream of voting for any other party than the one you have always supported.

Under FPTP, most people end up being represented by someone they voted against and "safe seats" mean some votes will never count. Our democracy is far from ideal but the MPs we elect are representatives, not delegates. They have a duty to do what they judge to be best for their constituents and for the country as a whole. They have been advised in an advisory referendum, that two years ago 51.9% of those who voted wanted to leave the EU, and they should take account of that advice, but it should never negate their patriotic duty to do what is best for our country.

The slide of Sterling as a result of Brexit - were we told this would be a continuous slide-not a mere “fluctuation”? So this is preparing for the worse?
- you still don’t understand the meaning of anarchy btw

crystaltipps, just another point: "little noticed in Westminster" I would like to say are you mad? But that would be extremely rude and I would not think of asking you such a questions. So the question I am asking you is why would Westminster not notice that sterling is struggling as you put it somewhat dramatically? I imagine that those who's job it is to run this Country notice these things. The BOE will be reporting to the Chancellor no doubt....your naivety on these matter may stem from the fact you have never been in business, and Government and all the supporting financial mechanism are a very large business at the functional level, so it is understandable that not everyone will understand how things work, and make simplistic comments of complex situations. Things don't stay the same, the speed of reaction and anticipating the changes are key to good Governance.

your naivety on these matter may stem from the fact you have never been in business

So what's your excuse Ally?

Varian so you don't feel it is unsafe to claim that "In our elections people vote for many reasons, mostly negative reasons". How on earth can you know that!

As for your comment: "It is disingenuous to claim that everyone who voted Labour or Tory in the GE voted for any kind of brexit- let alone a hard brexit or a no deal brexit."

Again, Varian so predictably selective in your presentation of other peoples words. What I said was "Results: Referendum cross party majority vote to Leave the EU.

Results: General Election both Government and Opposition Party's stood for re-election on a Pro Brexit mandate. We ow have a Government and Opposition who were put into Parliament on a Brexit mandate".

Two issues: As far as the General Election was concerned the main issues for both party's was Brexit along with other promises being made. You have so little regard for your fellow citizens Varian, to believe that they are so shallow that they were so revved up by the Referendum, that at a GE announced because of Brexit, that Brexit would not have been at least one of the main issues for voting as people did. Both Labour and Conservatives stood on a Pro Brexit mandate. Those who stood on an anti Brexit mandate like the Liberals were consigned to the Political wildnerness. UKIP being a Pro Brexit Party was absorbed into the other two Pro Brexit Party's Conservative or Labour.

As for the MP's, no they do not have the luxury of having their own view. They stood for election or re-election on the mandate of their Party...party politics. These promises are the ones made to the people who vote for them. If when elected they then do not follow the party line, they are both deceitful and dishonest and do not deserve to claim the wages they are paid if they don't honour the promises made.The leader of both in fact all party's has the right to expect those elected under their colours, under their common policies to follow the party line once in Parliament. At the next GE those who let down their electorate will not be forgotten and the electorate will make their displeasure known at the ballot box. That is Democracy!