Notanumber
A Free Man
I will support their closure if they are Halal.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
whats your beef with brexit?
- Thread starter England my lionheart
- Start date
I will support their closure if they are Halal.
Notanumber
A Free Man
It will keep us out of the EU army.
They are not. They are British abattoirs employing british british workers and slaughtering british stock. They stay in business by exporting to the EU. I hope that makes you proud
Remember all the money saved with military (and police) cutbacks???
So now when Russia comes knocking on your door you will have no one to protect you...
And i guess you are quite happy to avoid forking up for humanitarian aid.
And still no answer my questions in post 4156 so i i will ask again.
Are you staying that your democratically elected government are not accountable?
How will leaving Europe change that situation in your eyes?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Don't be silly - we will need deals far more than the EU (who will be rightly p***** off with us) and the US. Brexit is an absurd act of national self-harm in any form but a no-deal would be national insanity.
Notanumber
A Free Man
Does supporting Halal slaughter make you proud?
An RSPCA spokesman added: ‘The public have a right to know how their meat is produced. Many people are extremely concerned about animal welfare. What The Mail on Sunday has discovered shows that people are not being kept informed. The key to a more humane death for these animals is that they are stunned before slaughter.’
Britain goes halal (...but nobody tells public) | Daily Mail Online
Recent reports show that a shocking 94 million animals were slaughtered[1] without stunning in the UK in 2018.
The reason animals can be slaughtered without stunning is an absurd religious exemption provided by ineffective lawmakers. There is simply no point in prohibiting unstunned slaughter if an exemption is given to the very people who want to carry on slaughtering without stunning. This is political trickery by slippery politicians who want the public to believe they are taking action on animal cruelty, all the while encouraging it with ridiculous exemptions.
The halal market is particularly toxic in the UK. Halal meat, unlike kosher, is being imposed on all of us – it is served in schools, hospitals, sporting venues, and other public places.
Those who do argue to bring this horror to an end will often be accused of “hate” or “Islamophobia”. When MP Philip Davies asked Parliament simply to label unstunned meat and allow consumers to make informed choices, he was accused of “picking on religious communities”.
End Halal and Non-Stun Slaughter NOW!
Notanumber
A Free Man
The EU needs our armed forces more than we need theirs and our armed forced do not need to be told what to do by the EU.
Notanumber
A Free Man
If you are right, why were we even given the chance to vote for it?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I see Leave.EU have shown their racism again.
Brexit group Leave.EU condemned for 'xenophobic' tweet about Angela Merkel
Brexit group Leave.EU condemned for 'xenophobic' tweet about Angela Merkel
Notanumber
A Free Man
In this Left dominated PC world the Right would be condemned for saying boo to a goose.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
We weren't given a vote on no-deal, as even Gove has said. We were given the chance to vote on leaving because the PM at the time was an arrogant fool who thought he could settle a Tory party dispute. It was always a stupid thing to put to a simple in/out vote - doubly so when nobody had worked out what leave would mean.
Richard Dawkins put it well:
In 2016 our then Prime Minister David Cameron caved in to pressure from his backbenchers to hold a referendum on British membership of the EU. This was a question of immense complexity involving sophisticated economic ramifications, the full extent of which became only too apparent later in the year when prodigal regiments of lawyers and civil servants had to be employed to cope with the administrative and legal load. If ever there was a matter for lengthy parliamentary debate and cabinet discussion heavily informed by advice from highly qualified experts, it was membership of the EU. Could there be a question less suited to a single plebiscite decision? And yet we were told to mistrust experts (‘You, the voter, are the expert here’) by politicians who presumably would demand an expert surgeon to remove their appendix or an expert pilot to fly their plane. So the decision was handed over to non-experts like me, even people whose stated motives for voting included ‘Well, it’s nice to have a change,’ and ‘Well, I preferred the old blue passport to the European purple one.’ For the sake of short-term political manoeuvring within his own party, David Cameron played Russian roulette with the long-term future of his country, of Europe, even of the world.
And so, to the precautionary principle. The referendum was about a major change, a political revolution whose pervasive effects would persist for decades if not longer. A huge constitutional change, the sort of change where, if ever, the precautionary principle should have been paramount. When it comes to constitutional amendments, the United States requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress followed by ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures. Arguably that bar is set a bit too high, but the principle is sound. David Cameron’s referendum, by contrast, asked for only a simple majority on a single yes/no question. Did it not occur to him that so radical a constitutional step might merit stipulation of a two-thirds majority? Or at least 60 per cent? Perhaps a minimum voter turnout to make sure such a major decision was not taken by a minority of the electorate? Maybe a second vote, a fortnight later, to make sure the populace really meant it? Or a second round a year later, when the terms and consequences of withdrawal had become at least minimally apparent? But no, all Cameron demanded was anything over 50 per cent in a single yes/no vote, at a time when opinion polls were yo-yo-ing up and down and the likely result was changing day by day. It is said that a leftover statute of British common law stipulates that ‘no idiot shall be admitted to parliament’. You’d think at least the stricture might apply to Prime Ministers.
From: Dawkins, R (2017). Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist. Transworld. Kindle Edition.And so, to the precautionary principle. The referendum was about a major change, a political revolution whose pervasive effects would persist for decades if not longer. A huge constitutional change, the sort of change where, if ever, the precautionary principle should have been paramount. When it comes to constitutional amendments, the United States requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress followed by ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures. Arguably that bar is set a bit too high, but the principle is sound. David Cameron’s referendum, by contrast, asked for only a simple majority on a single yes/no question. Did it not occur to him that so radical a constitutional step might merit stipulation of a two-thirds majority? Or at least 60 per cent? Perhaps a minimum voter turnout to make sure such a major decision was not taken by a minority of the electorate? Maybe a second vote, a fortnight later, to make sure the populace really meant it? Or a second round a year later, when the terms and consequences of withdrawal had become at least minimally apparent? But no, all Cameron demanded was anything over 50 per cent in a single yes/no vote, at a time when opinion polls were yo-yo-ing up and down and the likely result was changing day by day. It is said that a leftover statute of British common law stipulates that ‘no idiot shall be admitted to parliament’. You’d think at least the stricture might apply to Prime Ministers.
Rowland got my vote but I still had no direct say in the commission or the treaties since we joined.
You introduced halal as yet another straw man, my post was clear and later comment made it easy for even the most simple minded to comprehend. I should know, i composed it.
So are you going to address the actual subject or are you going to continue obfuscating as though you have no valid response?
Dont talk wet, the EUs armed forces have, in recent years become a laughing stock.
But you are happy with what remains of the british armed forces to perform exactly the same tasks as the EU propose that are demanded by the UN. How interesting (sheesh)
And still no answer my questions in post 4156 so i i will ask again.
Are you staying that your democratically elected government are not accountable?
How will leaving Europe change that situation in your eyes?
You are so predictable
As you have no direct say in who is prime minister.
Thats the way it works and what we signed for when we joined the EU.
Notanumber
A Free Man
When we take back control, our independent government will be able to correct the abomination that is Halal slaughter.
If they don't, we will know who to blame.
You think?
Notanumber
A Free Man
Don’t say you are supporting the UN as well as the EU now. The UN should demand nothing. Just like the EU, they have ideas above their station.