UK Politics Thread IX: The Masses Against the Classes

[The Free Joy State]

No, but they can sanction or embargo the UK (or even outright invade it if things get bad enough). You can't just get rid of the international community by pretending that it doesn't exist.

Sure!

Countries will embargo the UK because we have lower food safety standards.

They will refuse to trade with us if our safety and welfare standards aren't equivalent.

If we embrace working practises that are dangerous to human life, they could embargo us.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

If you don't care about what happens how come you're on here on a daily basis arguing that there should be a no deal Brexit? This edgy nihilism thing isn't nearly as interesting as you might believe.

I don't say what I say to provoke a reaction, I've only ever said what I truly think about a given issue here (unless I'm being obviously sarcastic.)

You're missing the point. You keep arguing that there should be a no deal Brexit, but not once have you demonstrated a good reason why there should be a no deal Brexit.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Sure!

Countries will embargo the UK because we have lower food safety standards.

They will refuse to trade with us if our safety and welfare standards aren't equivalent.

If we embrace working practises that are dangerous to human life, they could embargo us.

Can you give me an example of a country that has faced international sanctions over health and safety at work?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

No, but they can sanction or embargo the UK (or even outright invade it if things get bad enough). You can't just get rid of the international community by pretending that it doesn't exist.

Sure!

Countries will embargo the UK because we have lower food safety standards.

Why would a nation buy food from the UK if that food doesn't meet its safety standards?
Obviously a full embargo over food safety alone is probably not going to happen, but food safety was also not the only thing that the UK doesn't need (according to you, at least).

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I don't say what I say to provoke a reaction, I've only ever said what I truly think about a given issue here (unless I'm being obviously sarcastic.)

You're missing the point. You keep arguing that there should be a no deal Brexit, but not once have you demonstrated a good reason why there should be a no deal Brexit.

The fact that you consider every reason for a no deal Brexit to be a bad reason doesn't mean that I haven't been explaining why I want a no-deal Brexit. In fact, a no deal Brexit isn't compulsory...if it's that or a Theresa May Brexit though, it's no deal any day of the week.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

They will refuse to trade with us if our safety and welfare standards aren't equivalent.

If we embrace working practises that are dangerous to human life, they could embargo us.

Can you give me an example of a country that has faced international sanctions over health and safety at work?

Can you give me a reason why it couldn't happen?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Sure!

Countries will embargo the UK because we have lower food safety standards.

Why would a nation buy food from the UK if that food doesn't meet its safety standards?
Obviously a full embargo over food safety alone is probably not going to happen, but food safety was also not the only thing that the UK doesn't need (according to you, at least).

Why do people still buy American-produced food?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Can you give me an example of a country that has faced international sanctions over health and safety at work?

Can you give me a reason why it couldn't happen?

Because countries and companies give far more tosses about the bottom line than they do about the rights of a worker thousands of miles away.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

You're missing the point. You keep arguing that there should be a no deal Brexit, but not once have you demonstrated a good reason why there should be a no deal Brexit.

The fact that you consider every reason for a no deal Brexit to be a bad reason doesn't mean that I haven't been explaining why I want a no-deal Brexit. In fact, a no deal Brexit isn't compulsory...if it's that or a Theresa May Brexit though, it's no deal any day of the week.

You say that you've been explaining why you want it, but I'm still trying to figure out how the fuck it's supposed to benefit you or anyone else. As you yourself have admitted, you don't think this is going to benefit you. You have no logical reason to want a no deal Brexit (yes, you've given reasons, but when asked to explain why they're good reasons, you never seem to give a good explanation).
There are reasons, good reasons, to want a no deal Brexit, but your arguments for it are neither good nor reasonable.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Why would a nation buy food from the UK if that food doesn't meet its safety standards?
Obviously a full embargo over food safety alone is probably not going to happen, but food safety was also not the only thing that the UK doesn't need (according to you, at least).

Why do people still buy American-produced food?

Because it's cheap and it meets their health and safety standards. Also, the US is a diplomatic, military, and economic superpower. Britain is arguably the first one of those things, and if you get your way, it won't even be that anymore.
Also, I feel like I should point out that Britain imports 80% of the food it consumes, so the whole discussion is kind of pointless.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The fact that you consider every reason for a no deal Brexit to be a bad reason doesn't mean that I haven't been explaining why I want a no-deal Brexit. In fact, a no deal Brexit isn't compulsory...if it's that or a Theresa May Brexit though, it's no deal any day of the week.

You say that you've been explaining why you want it, but I'm still trying to figure out how the fuck it's supposed to benefit you or anyone else. As you yourself have admitted, you don't think this is going to benefit you. You have no logical reason to want a no deal Brexit (yes, you've given reasons, but when asked to explain why they're good reasons, you never seem to give a good explanation).
There are reasons, good reasons, to want a no deal Brexit, but your arguments for it are neither good nor reasonable.

I agree, pretty much, with many of the reasons which are generally presented for it. The only difference in my standpoint from many of the people interviewed on any number of tv voxpops is that I am fully aware that, handled badly, a no deal Brexit might result in some very, very bad things happening to the country. It just doesn't bother me as much as you probs think it should.

[The Free Joy State]

They will refuse to trade with us if our safety and welfare standards aren't equivalent.

If we embrace working practises that are dangerous to human life, they could embargo us.

Can you give me an example of a country that has faced international sanctions over health and safety at work?

It could happen. From the UN (the section "Substantive occupational health issues and the right to occupational health")

The right to health requires States to take steps to prevent, treat and control diseases related to work. Despite the well-established connection between work and disease,30 the nexus between factors in the work environment and workers‟ health outcomes is not always clear or easily defined. This is particularly the case with regard to diseases caused by multiple factors.
[...]
For example, in extractive industries, exposure to dust, fumes and particulates places workers at increased risk of being affected by a number of diseases, including occupational diseases, such as coal miner‟s pneumoconiosis; work-related disease, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and diseases affecting working populations, such as asthma.[...] Primary prevention is considered the most effective means of reducing the burden of disease, and as such prevention of disease should be the principal aim of States.

Having no health and safety at work would make that impossible.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Can you give me an example of a country that has faced international sanctions over health and safety at work?

It could happen. From the UN (the section "Substantive occupational health issues and the right to occupational health")

The right to health requires States to take steps to prevent, treat and control diseases related to work. Despite the well-established connection between work and disease,30 the nexus between factors in the work environment and workers‟ health outcomes is not always clear or easily defined. This is particularly the case with regard to diseases caused by multiple factors.
[...]
For example, in extractive industries, exposure to dust, fumes and particulates places workers at increased risk of being affected by a number of diseases, including occupational diseases, such as coal miner‟s pneumoconiosis; work-related disease, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and diseases affecting working populations, such as asthma.[...] Primary prevention is considered the most effective means of reducing the burden of disease, and as such prevention of disease should be the principal aim of States.

Having no health and safety at work would make that impossible.

It 'could' happen, but it won't happen. Companies want cheap products, and states which produce cheap but good products are going to get trade.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

It could happen. From the UN (the section "Substantive occupational health issues and the right to occupational health")

The right to health requires States to take steps to prevent, treat and control diseases related to work. Despite the well-established connection between work and disease,30 the nexus between factors in the work environment and workers‟ health outcomes is not always clear or easily defined. This is particularly the case with regard to diseases caused by multiple factors.
[...]
For example, in extractive industries, exposure to dust, fumes and particulates places workers at increased risk of being affected by a number of diseases, including occupational diseases, such as coal miner‟s pneumoconiosis; work-related disease, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and diseases affecting working populations, such as asthma.[...] Primary prevention is considered the most effective means of reducing the burden of disease, and as such prevention of disease should be the principal aim of States.

Having no health and safety at work would make that impossible.

It 'could' happen, but it won't happen. Companies want cheap products, and states which produce cheap but good products are going to get trade.

Products made in countries with no health or safety regulations are definitely cheap, but they aren't good.

[The Free Joy State]

It could happen. From the UN (the section "Substantive occupational health issues and the right to occupational health")

The right to health requires States to take steps to prevent, treat and control diseases related to work. Despite the well-established connection between work and disease,30 the nexus between factors in the work environment and workers‟ health outcomes is not always clear or easily defined. This is particularly the case with regard to diseases caused by multiple factors.
[...]
For example, in extractive industries, exposure to dust, fumes and particulates places workers at increased risk of being affected by a number of diseases, including occupational diseases, such as coal miner‟s pneumoconiosis; work-related disease, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and diseases affecting working populations, such as asthma.[...] Primary prevention is considered the most effective means of reducing the burden of disease, and as such prevention of disease should be the principal aim of States.

Having no health and safety at work would make that impossible.

It 'could' happen, but it won't happen. Companies want cheap products, and states which produce cheap but good products are going to get trade.

You do realise that embargos occur despite the fact that wealthy bosses don't care about the fact people are suffering, don't you?

The wealthy business owners aren't the ones responsible for deciding to embargo or not.

And their willingness does not change the legal impossibilities of trading to countries where we do not have equivalent standards. The lower our standards slip, the fewer countries we'll be able to trade with (and that excludes the EU, which currently takes 44% of all goods and services).

[Greater vakolicci haven]

It 'could' happen, but it won't happen. Companies want cheap products, and states which produce cheap but good products are going to get trade.

You do realise that embargos occur despite the fact that wealthy bosses don't care about the fact people are suffering, don't you?

The wealthy business owners aren't the ones responsible for deciding to embargo or not.

And their willingness does not change the legal impossibilities of trading to countries where we do not have equivalent standards. The lower our standards slip, the fewer countries we'll be able to trade with (and that excludes the EU, which currently takes 44% of all goods and services).

The wealthy business owners have a disconcerting amount of say regarding government policy.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

You do realise that embargos occur despite the fact that wealthy bosses don't care about the fact people are suffering, don't you?

The wealthy business owners aren't the ones responsible for deciding to embargo or not.

And their willingness does not change the legal impossibilities of trading to countries where we do not have equivalent standards. The lower our standards slip, the fewer countries we'll be able to trade with (and that excludes the EU, which currently takes 44% of all goods and services).

The wealthy business owners have a disconcerting amount of say regarding government policy.

You describe their level of control as "disconcerting" yet them having control is the sole thing preventing your economic plan from being a colossal dumpster fire instead of just a normal-sized one.

[The Free Joy State]

You do realise that embargos occur despite the fact that wealthy bosses don't care about the fact people are suffering, don't you?

The wealthy business owners aren't the ones responsible for deciding to embargo or not.

And their willingness does not change the legal impossibilities of trading to countries where we do not have equivalent standards. The lower our standards slip, the fewer countries we'll be able to trade with (and that excludes the EU, which currently takes 44% of all goods and services).

The wealthy business owners have a disconcerting amount of say regarding government policy.

Our government policy, perhaps. But not that of international bodies. Not that of the UN.

The UN has already condemned the UK government.

Our government policy can change however. A government can decide to bring back child labour, that every wealthy person must own a beagle and the working classes must step off the pavement and doff their cap if the can pass the legislation.

But you can bet that there would be international condemnation, and sanctions, if they did.

EDIT: And your post didn't answer my second point -- that, if standards did keep slipping, we'd just cut off our own noses as it would be legally impossible for other countries to trade with us.

[Ifreann]

Hate to tell you this, but every country, everywhere in the world, has to think of what every other country in the world thinks of its laws. This is not going to change.

They don't all get to show how much they disagree with them in courts with supremacy over our own though, do they?

Leaving the EU won't get Britain out of the jurisdiction of international courts.

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

Oh dear.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Thank fuck for that, that's the worst tory gone. Next Gove, please.

[Starblaydia]

It's all the same, leftists are anti-Semites, especially the Gay-Loving, Putin-supporting Iranian puppet that Corbyn is.

Tito was a brutal communist dictator who was against Israel, you know the Jewish State? Something you Leftists and fake Jews need to know is that Anti-Zionism IS Anti-Semitism. Oh and you're gay as well, what a shocker.

Surkiea you are *** warned for 'all X are Y' and trolling ***

[The Nihilistic view]

Most UK food production and animal welfare standards are more stringent than the EU. Like with environmental protections. We basically invented environmental health so I'm not really quite sure where this "bonfire" of standards is going to come from. Same with most of those sort of things the UK is generally in the advanced guard if not the first. Take one simple example from the tip of my head workers holiday rights. The EU standard for paid time off is 20 days, the UK standard is 28. So for most of that sort of thing it's pretty much 100% scaremongering over stuff like that because our own laws are often better than the EU already they don't sit at the EU minimum.

[Cerinda]

Well Stewart is out of the race, the only tory I ever liked is gone, between the rest of them we're fucked.

[Ifreann]

Most UK food production and animal welfare standards are more stringent than the EU. Like with environmental protections. We basically invented environmental health so I'm not really quite sure where this "bonfire" of standards is going to come from.

The Yanks.