Rumours of Labour giving a nod and wink to its leave MPs coming from the Lexiter faction.
but the more intelligent know that Johnson getting a deal through and calling a GE would obliterate Labour down to 3rd party size.
Mainly due to Labours Brexit positions over the last few years. His last bastion of supporters is deserting him.
If Labour elected one of those parasitical worms that lives in eyeballs as leader it would be more popular than Corbyn.
I mean that the new WA, even with the subsequent FTA envisaged by the PD, is barely a deal. It’s certainly nothing like the deals suggested by Leavers and quasi-Leavers to be possible before the Article 50 notification, or even long after by the Tories. It’s not Canada Plus Plus Plus, it’s Canada Minus. It just barely covers the cliff edge scenarios, at least for the next 13 months (I have very serious doubts that our customs infrastructure will be ready then, let alone the rest of it), but after that we’re basically a third country like any other. The only thing of substance the PD really speaks to is tariffs.
The original study.
For some reason, they are counting mercury, but in that case, you should write off many different types of fish, because that has significantly more mercury then any of the baby food.
Well, one of the first things the say to you when you have a baby is: no mercury-heavy fish until they are way older. So, yep, they are written off for babies indeed.
Having mercury in food for babies is not good.
People always just read the headlines of these pieces, and never the details. Here is a small section of it.
Although mercury was detected in 32 percent of the 168
baby foods tested in this study, levels were far lower than
typical amounts in tuna and other seafood. FDA and EPA’s
joint advisory gives safer seafood choices for pregnant
women and young children (EPA and FDA 2019). A number
of NGOs have published more conservative advice to
protect women who eat seafood frequently (EWG 2014,
MBASW 2020). Mercury levels in canned tuna exceed
the legal limit under California’s Proposition 65, but an
attempt to require the law’s mandated warnings on canned
tuna failed in 2006 when an appeals court found that the
California law was preempted by the FDA/EPA seafood
advisory (Kone 2006).
Full disclosure, I’m am not a biologist or a chemist. My background is psychology.
Also, I’m not a fan of the idea of using IQ in the study, without a good definition of it. I realize that we don’t really have a good method of measuring intelligence, and that having a consistent method of studying intelligence might be all we have, even if its not accurate. But, I hate studies that use it, nonetheless.
I thought you were saying the original study was counting Mercury and it shouldn’t. My point was that mercury should obviously be tested for, and that many fishes are indeed written of for babies, specifically those that have levels higher than these.
But yest, many foods in the study seem safe regarding mercury. Reading the study, Mercury is very low in mostly everything tested except in rice based cereals. With 2-3ppb in average, and it being a food that the baby is likely to eat daily, you are most likely going over safe limits. Some snacks also show mercury at the same levels, but the baby is less likely to consume them frequently.
For a research article, it’s work cited page is… short. I think, if I were to submit this to one of my classes, back in college, I would not have gotten a passing grade. It makes a lot of claims, without backing them up with peer reviewed research or sources.
Right. When the transition period ends, we’re going to be staring down the exact same crisis. Instead of panicking about leaving the EU, we’ll be panicking about leaving the transition period.
Maybe we’ll try asking for an extension to the transition period…
wavey
6572
Maybe we won’t have to, and it could be unilaterally decided by an unelected and secretive committee?
(see thread for evidence, including the interesting fact that “There is no duty to publish the decisions of the Joint Committee, even though they are legally binding”)
Still, that’s sovereignty for you.
I mean, they’re chosen representatives of the UK government and the EC. It’s no more unelected and secretive than the negotiations have been to this point, or the negotiations for the FTA will be.
wavey
6574
Quite. Not really what you’d want in a body able to unilaterally make laws though…?
The decisions adopted by the Joint Committee shall be binding on the Union and the United Kingdom, and the Union and the United Kingdom shall implement those decisions. They shall have the same legal effect as this Agreement.
Well, kind of by definition it’s not unilateral. It effectively requires the consent of the UK government and the EU. If parliament wants to constrain what the government can do in the committee, or enforce transparency, that’s its prerogative, same as for the negotiations.
And in theory the committee is not supposed to make laws, it’s simply supposed to interpret the WA. Interpreting the law is something ordinarily done unilaterally. Now obviously that’s to a certain degree a distinction without a difference, and you could argue things like extending a transition period is making law, but it’s still within the terms of the existing WA.
wavey
6576
That’s the problem though, isn’t it? Would parliament need to somehow know ahead of time what was going to be agreed in the (confidential by default) meetings, and preemptively legislate? Once a decision is made by the JC - as you say, which would be the will of the EU and (potentially a minority) UK govt - what could parliament do about it?
That’s what I meant by unilateral - as a body, it doesn’t seem to have any effective check.
It does know. The scope of the JC’s decision-making powers is laid out in the WA.
Do recall, the whole point of the JC was to assuage UK concerns about the ECJ having the final word on interpreting the WA.
wavey
6578
It’s… not exactly a narrowly defined scope is it?
They can for instance
consider any matter of interest relating to an area covered by this Agreement
(emphasis mine) and adopt amendments
to address situations unforeseen when this Agreement was signed
and generally
take such other actions in the exercise of its functions as decided by the Union and the United Kingdom.
Don’t get me wrong, if we are going to Brexit I want us to be as closely aligned to the EU as possible, for as long as possible. So the effect of the joint committee looks good to me. I’m just surprised Brexiters are apparently enthusiastic about it as well.
draxen
6580
It’s going to be close but it looks like this might actually pass. Fingers crossed!
Sounds like it’s not quite that simple:
draxen
6582
Bloody Letwin. More delay and if the last 3 years has shown anything it’s that Parliament loves to delay.
spiffy
6583
When it means the economy sliding into the channel, then they prefer delay, yes.
Anyone know what time the vote is tomorrow?
