Off on a bit of a tangent from the original post now but I totally agree with Glid`s point about animal cruelty and I don't think cheap food is actually so cheap in the long run. The costs involved with both the foot and mouth outbreak earlier this century and the Mad Cow Disease in the 90`s were enormous, both largely brought about by the cheap food ethos and the drive for so called efficiency.Eat happy healthy animals that have not been stuffed full of antibiotics etc . Its better for you. I appreciate that not everyone can afford the extra for free range but I`m not so sure the country can afford the long term costs of huge food miles, poor quality food and so on. Also, most people accept that intensive livestock farming is cruel, does not being able to afford free range make it ok for animals to exist in horrible conditions ?
We are always told that people spend less now on their food bill as a proportion of income than ever before. So people have enough money for crisps, snacks and biscuits, but not for ethically reared meat. Odd, it to me seems.
We as a nation have to accept responsibility, if we all stopped buying battery chickens and pigs the supermarkets would stop selling them. I think we are getting there slowly with eggs as I believe the proportion of free range sold against battery is increasing.
Like most things in life though people can only respond to them if they are aware of them (and give a damn). Which brings us back to the original point
Well, that's the thing, isn't it? Out of sight, out of mind. People don't give a damn, because it's an easy thing to ignore. You might say it is easy to ignore fox-hunting too, and it is, but the ban was just evidence of the British class system at work and most people don't ignore that and do give a damn about it. If you had videos of the conditions pigs are raised in by the meat counter, you can bet that not many people would buy battery farmed stuff. Which brings us back to the EU debate. As it all happens in Brussels, no one understands its workings and it all seems opaque and far away, it's easy to just say "let's get rid". The media have a job to make sure that people understand it, but the media give the people what they want to consume, and most people don't want to spend time and energy thinking about these issues.
Which brings us back to the EU debate. As it all happens in Brussels, no one understands its workings and it all seems opaque and far away, it's easy to just say "let's get rid". The media have a job to make sure that people understand it, but the media give the people what they want to consume, and most people don't want to spend time and energy thinking about these issues.[/QUOTE] If only we had more balance. My mother worked as a physio in the NHS most of her working life and my father was a businessman so I consider myself lucky to have been brought up in a family that saw the benefits of both the welfare state and capitalism. It is so glaringly obvious that neither in totality has the answers to all the questions, I wish politicians were less tribal and would regularly accept that a good thing is a good thing even if the person you most despise comes up with it. Anyway, back to the EU, it is not all bad and it is not all good but somewhere in between. I`m certain we`ll survive without but not so certain we`ll survive in it, not in a condition that I`ll be happy to live in anyway. Still, be nice to get the chance to vote on it.
Our politicians have been disingenuous over the EU for some time now, making vague promises for home consumption whilst carrying on with the ever closer agenda abroad. I have not heard or read one story that suggests the EU Commission is doing anything other than moving forward towards ever closer union, it is in their DNA. And that is the problem.
As I have previously mentioned, there has been a debate throughout Europe (except the UK) for many years about whether the EU should ultimately have a unified structure or a federal structure. The federalists strongly predominate, and the unifiers are in a minority. From your post, you seem confused; you seem to think one side of that debate - the losing side - represents what you call "pro-EU lobbyists". Regarding the globe, it may have escaped your notice that the whole of Europe put together is pretty small in comparison with America, China and India. Europe has a chance, just a chance, of remaining a major power in the world in the long-term but only provided it is not wrecked by short-sighted isolationists.
All of the members states are committed to an "ever closer union", and always have been. That has been absolutely central to the European project for over 50 years now, as everyone in Europe has always known. Everyone except you, that is - it seems to come as a surprise to you.
It comes as absolutely no surprise, I just happen to not agree with it. From # 68 you state whether the EU should ultimately have a unified structure or a federal structure There is of course a third option which is to revert to the concept of a reformed Common Market.
