Pyro as Bill said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:
ROFLMAO!
Yeah, that's why the UK always were the ones who blocked higher standards in th EU if someone did.
Also, like Lafiel already pointed out, Brexit is about removing those EU standards since they are too high for some... let's call them less scrupulous companies who don't care about the well-being of their customers at all, just their sales.
And the biggest lol comes from those who are campaigning the hardest for no-deal. Just look about their wealth: They're practically all multimillionaires, many of them inherited. They want to turn the UK into a tax haven - but they can't do so under the EU anymore, even Luxembourg and Switzerland had to water down their taxing schemes a lot. So leave without a deal and don't care if the general population get's royally fucked sideways into their anuses, they will do fine and get richer.
Read past the opener.
That just means that she will continue to campaign for remain if brexit would win again. Nothing about Brexit now certain to win if there would be a second vote.
Horsemeat (called cheval btw) is actually very good, and not pumped full of antibiotics like beef. And 1000x better than chlorinated chicken. The problem with horsemeat is a cultural one, not one of quality - very few people would want to eat horsemeat because they don't consider them eating something like a horse.
|
It's not about abolishing standards. It's about adapting them to suit the 94% of UK businesses that don't export to the EU. Any goods going to the EU will still abide by EU standards.
Those 'unscrupulous' companies want more free trade. Some are probably hoping for a bit of protection just like how some other 'unscrupulous' companies currently receive protection.
I'm not dissing cheval I just prefer it not to be labelled and sold as beef.
|
So what specific adaptations would they be?
And how many of those 94% are still reliant on EU based supply chains?
