網(wǎng)友討論：英國(guó)考慮利用英國(guó)脫歐的“自由”，允許在食品上使用歐盟禁止的殺蟲劑

Good-Helicopter-9303
Which pesticide company MP is part owner of I wonder.

我想知道首相是哪家農(nóng)藥公司的股東。

Fight-Milk-Sales-Rep
Indeed, BREXIT with regards to food was always going to be about lowering our standards and doing sketchy shit. Because the EU never restricted us from making higher standards.
They will be flooding us with genetically modified food and whatever shitstain Monsanto calls itself now. Spraying cancer all over food and killing even more bees. It's okay, there are very expensive Monsanto robot bees!
GM food is not in and of itself bad, however the pandoras box it opens contains many terrible things and methods to abuse us. When unregulated it's like the fucking wild west and can easily cause a pandemic by fucking with eco systems and antibiotics... Canada had a shock with that. Then there are patent laws and aggressive invasion tactics to keep farmers in your iron grip.
GM food done in evil negligent ways and horrible pesticides pushed through by this current criminal government are more of a threat to this country than that lunatic Putin pushing the red button.

事實(shí)上，英國(guó)脫歐在食品方面總是會(huì)降低我們的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，做一些垃圾的事情。因?yàn)闅W盟從未限制我們制定更高的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。
他們會(huì)用轉(zhuǎn)基因食品和孟山都現(xiàn)在的新噱頭來(lái)淹沒(méi)我們。在食物上噴灑癌癥物質(zhì)，殺死更多的蜜蜂。沒(méi)關(guān)系，反正有非常昂貴的孟山都機(jī)器人蜜蜂！
轉(zhuǎn)基因食品本身并不壞，但是它打開的潘多拉盒子里包含了許多可怕的東西和虐待我們的方法。當(dāng)不受監(jiān)管的時(shí)候，它就像tmd蠻荒的西部，可以很容易地通過(guò)破壞生態(tài)系統(tǒng)和抗生素引起流行病…加拿大已經(jīng)對(duì)此感到震驚了。此外，還有專利法和咄咄逼人的入侵策略來(lái)牢牢控制農(nóng)民。
對(duì)這個(gè)國(guó)家來(lái)說(shuō)，以邪惡疏忽的方式生產(chǎn)的轉(zhuǎn)基因食品，以及由這個(gè)犯罪的政府推行的可怕的殺蟲劑，比那個(gè)瘋狂的普京按下紅色按鈕的威脅更大。

small_trunksYorkshire
Thus reducing their ability even further to sell to the EU. Way to go boys.

因此進(jìn)一步降低了他們向歐盟出售產(chǎn)品的能力。干得好，小伙子們。

TheMercianWarwickshire
Certain pesticides are banned from use in the European unx (and the UK for that matter) but this doesn't affect the import of products from places that continue to use those pesticides - some farmers are pretty vocal about this as well because it leaves them at a competitive disadvantage.
The EU has the same issue with most commercialised GM products, which are effectively banned except for a few member states but can be fed to cattle and meat products imported.

某些農(nóng)藥在歐盟（以及英國(guó)）被禁止使用，但這并不影響從那些繼續(xù)使用這些農(nóng)藥的地方進(jìn)口產(chǎn)品——一些農(nóng)民對(duì)此也直言不諱，因?yàn)檫@讓他們處于競(jìng)爭(zhēng)劣勢(shì)。
歐盟對(duì)大多數(shù)商業(yè)化的轉(zhuǎn)基因產(chǎn)品也有同樣的問(wèn)題，這些產(chǎn)品實(shí)際上是被禁止的，除了少數(shù)幾個(gè)成員國(guó)，但可以用來(lái)喂養(yǎng)牛和進(jìn)口轉(zhuǎn)基因肉類產(chǎn)品。

snotfartCambourne
Despite the certain knowledge that we are fucking up the entire planet, there are people who put a lot of energy into finding ways to accelerate the process. Are they actually evil? I never really bought into the concept of evil but there's not many other explanations.

盡管我們知道我們正在糟蹋整個(gè)地球，但還是有人投入了大量的精力來(lái)尋找加速這一進(jìn)程的方法。他們真的是邪惡的嗎？我從來(lái)沒(méi)有真正接受過(guò)這種邪惡論，但也沒(méi)有太多其他的解釋了。

kat_d9152
Yeah. I feel like Boomers last hurrah is to shit as much on the environment, their children and future generations as much as conceivably possible before they pass.
Hence student loans suddenly changing to being paid off at 60. Can't have kids just reaching that age with no house or savings, we got to make sure they suffer some more on the way down there. And a boomers bringing back nuclear war just for shits and giggles..
They're on their last hurrah and it's honestly starting to feel like they know they left a fucking mess behind them, didn't want to change despite warnings and now they dearly want to see just how much of a catastrophe they can create before they croak.

是的。我覺(jué)得嬰兒潮一代的最后一次歡呼是在他們?nèi)ナ乐氨M可能多地對(duì)環(huán)境、他們的孩子和未來(lái)的一代潑糞。
因此，學(xué)生貸款突然變成了要還到60歲。不能要孩子，到了那個(gè)年齡又沒(méi)有房子也沒(méi)有積蓄，我們得確保他們?cè)谌ツ抢锏耐局性馐芨嗟耐纯?。嬰兒潮時(shí)期出生的人把核戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)帶回來(lái)只是為了好玩……。
他們正在進(jìn)行最后的狂歡，老實(shí)說(shuō)，他們開始覺(jué)得他們知道自己留下了一個(gè)tmd爛攤子，盡管有警告，但他們不想改變，現(xiàn)在他們非常想看看，在他們崩潰之前，他們能制造多大的災(zāi)難。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Pocktio
I remember thinking people screeching about Brexit being good because it hands power back to our government.
Yes. Let's hand more power to the Tory government. Great idea, I'm sure they will use that to benefit the idiots who voted for it and not themselves and their rich buddies.

我記得人們尖叫著說(shuō)英國(guó)脫歐是好事，因?yàn)樗褭?quán)力交還給了我們的政府。
是的。讓我們把更多的權(quán)力交給保守黨政府。好主意，我敢肯定他們會(huì)利用這一點(diǎn)來(lái)造福那些投了票的白癡，而不是他們自己和他們的富人朋友。

NeatCleanMonster
We don't want shitty poisoned American produce happening in our country please!!

我們不希望有毒的美國(guó)生產(chǎn)在我們國(guó)家發(fā)生，拜托??！

RassimoFlom
52% said they did.

52%的人說(shuō)他們希望。

marsman
Apparently the other 48% were fine with it too while we were in the EU, given that this is an article speculating about whether the UK will follow a change in EU regulation..

顯然，在我們還在歐盟的時(shí)候，另外48%的人也對(duì)它表示滿意，因?yàn)檫@篇文章是在猜測(cè)英國(guó)是否會(huì)跟隨歐盟法規(guī)的變化。

brainburgerLondon
Realistically, I don't think the 48% knew all the different types of pesticide that were banned or the safety and environmental information on each. That is the preserve of experts.
The question before us in Brexit was do we want to remain and keep equal or higher standards than the EU, or do we want to leave and open the door to lower standards? The latter was chosen.

實(shí)際上，我不認(rèn)為那48%的人知道所有被禁用的不同類型的農(nóng)藥，以及每種農(nóng)藥的安全和環(huán)境信息。那是專家的工作。
在英國(guó)脫歐期間，擺在我們面前的問(wèn)題是，我們是想繼續(xù)保持與歐盟同等或更高的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，還是想離開歐盟，向更低的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)敞開大門？我們選擇了后者。

marsman
Realistically, I don't think the 48% knew all the different types of pesticide that were banned or the safety and environmental information on each. That is the preserve of experts.
Sure, most people don't unless they have an interest.
The question before us in Brexit was do we want to remain and keep equal or higher standards then the EU, or do we want to leave and open the door to lower standards. The latter was chosen.
No, I don't think that is what was chosen, or what the question was on brexit, the UK does after all have higher standards in a fair number of areas than the EU minimums as a whole (but obviously couldn't prevent the import of goods while it was in the EU). And of course the UK had less control than it does now over the agreements that the EU collectively entered into when it was an EU member.
Painting Brexit as a pursuit of lower standards is broadly false (although it is a handy lever in that people are now actually bothered by the notion of dropping standards, so to a degree I see it as useful). I mean this article is about the UK not yet implementing a similar measure to the EU on pesticides that there are already bans on in the UK (for production, not import), if that's the UK seeking lower standards, then would it also be true to say that the EU has been seeking to lower standards where it hasn't (say around animal welfare) matched UK changes raise standards?

“實(shí)際上，我不認(rèn)為那48%的人知道所有被禁用的不同類型的農(nóng)藥，以及每種農(nóng)藥的安全和環(huán)境信息。那是專家的工作”
當(dāng)然，大多數(shù)人不知道，除非他們有興趣。
“在英國(guó)脫歐期間，擺在我們面前的問(wèn)題是，我們是想繼續(xù)保持與歐盟同等或更高的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，還是想離開歐盟，向更低的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)敞開大門？我們選擇了后者”
不，我不認(rèn)為這是選哪一個(gè)，或者脫歐伴隨的問(wèn)題，畢竟，總體上英國(guó)在相當(dāng)多的領(lǐng)域都有高于歐盟最低標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)（但顯然，當(dāng)英國(guó)還在歐盟時(shí)是無(wú)法阻止商品進(jìn)口的）。當(dāng)然，與現(xiàn)在相比，英國(guó)作為歐盟成員國(guó)時(shí)對(duì)共同簽署的協(xié)議的控制權(quán)更小。
把英國(guó)脫歐描繪成追求更低標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的做法基本上是錯(cuò)誤的（盡管這是一個(gè)方便的手段，因?yàn)槿藗儸F(xiàn)在實(shí)際上對(duì)降低標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的概念感到困擾，所以在一定程度上我認(rèn)為這種敘事是有效果的）。我的意思是，這篇文章是關(guān)于英國(guó)還沒(méi)有對(duì)英國(guó)已經(jīng)禁止（生產(chǎn)，而不是進(jìn)口）的殺蟲劑實(shí)施類似的措施，如果英國(guó)是在尋求更低的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，那么是否也可以說(shuō)，歐盟一直在尋求降低標(biāo)準(zhǔn)（比如在動(dòng)物福利方面），這與英國(guó)提高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的變化不相匹配呢？

brainburgerLondon
I don't think its different with a future standards than with a current one. If the EU raises or introduces a standard in future then the EU members will have an agreement to adhere to or exceed it, but the UK will not. If we are aiming to be more commercially competitive then that will generally lead to a lower level of regulation in the UK than it otherwise would be.
Painting Brexit as a pursuit of lower standards is broadly false
Leave voters did talk about getting rid of EU red tape, because regulations are so burdensome, especialy those 'imposed' by foreigners (Although the number of EU regs is necessarily fewer than the same regs woud be if decided and enacted separately by all 27 members).
would it also be true to say that the EU has been seeking to lower standards where it hasn't (say around animal welfare) matched UK changes raise standards?
Yes, I don't see that as controversial. Most of these regs are made as a trade off between whats good for business and whats good for people, animals, or the environment. In most cases members can have higher standards if they choose. That's still the case, but the commercial pressure realistically will tend to lower them. This information is available to every adult. It's what they have chosen.

我認(rèn)為未來(lái)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和現(xiàn)在的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)沒(méi)有什么不同。如果歐盟未來(lái)提高或引入一項(xiàng)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，那么歐盟成員國(guó)將達(dá)成一項(xiàng)協(xié)議，遵守或超出該標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，但英國(guó)不會(huì)。如果我們的目標(biāo)是在商業(yè)上更具競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力，那么這通常會(huì)導(dǎo)致英國(guó)的監(jiān)管水平較低。
“把英國(guó)脫歐描繪成追求更低標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的做法基本上是錯(cuò)誤的”
脫歐選民確實(shí)談到了擺脫歐盟的繁瑣程序， 因?yàn)楸O(jiān)管是如此繁重，尤其是那些外國(guó)人“強(qiáng)加”的監(jiān)管（盡管歐盟法規(guī)的數(shù)量必然要比由27個(gè)成員國(guó)單獨(dú)決定和頒布的相同法規(guī)要少）
“那么是否也可以說(shuō)，歐盟一直在尋求降低標(biāo)準(zhǔn)（比如在動(dòng)物福利方面），這與英國(guó)提高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的變化不相匹配呢？”
是的，我不覺(jué)得這有什么爭(zhēng)議。這些規(guī)則中的大多數(shù)都是為了在對(duì)商業(yè)有利和對(duì)人類、動(dòng)物或環(huán)境有利之間進(jìn)行權(quán)衡而制定的。在大多數(shù)情況下，如果成員愿意，他們可以有更高的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。情況仍然如此，但商業(yè)壓力實(shí)際上會(huì)降低這些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。每個(gè)成年人都可以獲得這些信息。這由他們自主選擇。

marsman
I don't think its different with a future standards than with a current one. If the EU raises or introduces a standard in future then the EU members will have an agreement to adhere to or exceed it, but the UK will not.
No, of course not, because the UK is not in the EU. In the same way the EU won't be compelled to meet any higher UK standards either. Essentially both sides must meet the others standards for trade goods, but when it comes to domestic regulation they can regulate as they see fit.
If we are aiming to be more commercially competitive then that will generally lead to a lower level of regulation in the UK than it otherwise would be.
That supposes that the EU is aiming to be less competitive, or that higher standards are a problem when seeking to be competitive. I'd argue that's broadly false, standards, where they are used to deliver high quality and safe goods and services etc.. bolster competitiveness. Obviously where standards are in place as a means to block access or are effectively protectionist you might have an argument, and the EU (And so the UK at present) does see a bit of that, but that's not really a discussion about standards, but about barriers.
Leave voters did talk about getting rid of EU red tape, even a 'bonfire' of red tape, because regulations are so burdensome, especialy those 'imposed' by foreigners (Although the number of EU regs is necessarily fewer than the same regs woud be if decided and enacted separately by all 27 members).
Sure, and if you look at CAP, the VAT rules, the process for amending regulations, things like the approach to GMO's they had a point. It doesn't suggest binning all standards (or even a general reduction), but ensuring that the UK has appropriate high standards that facilitate trade and bolster competition and that they are flexible (change with evidence..) and well managed.

“我認(rèn)為未來(lái)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和現(xiàn)在的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)沒(méi)有什么不同。如果歐盟未來(lái)提高或引入一項(xiàng)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，那么歐盟成員國(guó)將達(dá)成一項(xiàng)協(xié)議，遵守或超出該標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，但英國(guó)不會(huì)”
不，當(dāng)然不會(huì)，因?yàn)橛?guó)不是歐盟成員國(guó)了。同樣，歐盟也不會(huì)被迫滿足任何更高的英國(guó)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。本質(zhì)上，雙方都必須在貿(mào)易貨物方面達(dá)到其他國(guó)家的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，但在國(guó)內(nèi)監(jiān)管方面，他們可以按照自己認(rèn)為合適的方式進(jìn)行監(jiān)管。
“如果我們的目標(biāo)是在商業(yè)上更具競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力，那么這通常會(huì)導(dǎo)致英國(guó)的監(jiān)管水平較低”
這是假設(shè)歐盟的目標(biāo)是降低競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力，或者在尋求競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力時(shí)更高的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是一個(gè)問(wèn)題。我認(rèn)為這是完全錯(cuò)誤的，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是用來(lái)提供高質(zhì)量和安全的商品和服務(wù)的……為了增強(qiáng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力。很明顯，當(dāng)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)作為一種阻止進(jìn)入的手段或者是有效的保護(hù)主義時(shí)，你可能會(huì)爭(zhēng)論，而歐盟（以及現(xiàn)在的英國(guó)）確實(shí)看到了一點(diǎn)，但這實(shí)際上不是關(guān)于標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的討論，而是關(guān)于貿(mào)易壁壘的討論。
“脫歐選民確實(shí)談到了擺脫歐盟的繁瑣程序， 因?yàn)楸O(jiān)管是如此繁重，尤其是那些外國(guó)人‘強(qiáng)加’的監(jiān)管（盡管歐盟法規(guī)的數(shù)量必然要比由27個(gè)成員國(guó)單獨(dú)決定和頒布的相同法規(guī)要少）”
當(dāng)然，如果你看看共同農(nóng)業(yè)政策，增值稅規(guī)則，修改法規(guī)的過(guò)程，比如轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的措施，他們說(shuō)得有道理。它并不是建議廢除所有的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)（或者甚至是全面削減），但要確保英國(guó)有適當(dāng)?shù)母邩?biāo)準(zhǔn)，以促進(jìn)貿(mào)易和促進(jìn)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，而且這些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是靈活的（能以證據(jù)來(lái)修改）和管理良好的。

garrymccreadie
may as well, we're going backwards now in this country. we think we're world leaders, but we're far from that. the world laughs at us, and our fatfuck dumb leader. get a grip, rejoin the EU and work together to earn respect.

也許，我們國(guó)家正在倒退。我們認(rèn)為我們是世界領(lǐng)袖，但我們遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不是。全世界都在嘲笑我們，還有我們愚蠢的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人。重新加入歐盟，共同努力贏得尊重吧。

Valonis
Saying ‘UK’ considers this implies it’s not a very small number of ruling elite assholes who are actually considering this. Of fucking course we don’t want banned substances on our food, just like we didn’t want raw sewerage dumped into our fresh water, or fracking, or any number of other terrible ideas this Tory government relentlessly pursue for the sake of making a few extra quid.

說(shuō)“英國(guó)”在考慮這一點(diǎn)，意味著不是一小部分統(tǒng)治精英在考慮這一點(diǎn)。當(dāng)然，我們不希望食物里有違禁物質(zhì)，就像我們不希望未經(jīng)處理的污水排入我們的淡水中，或者推廣水力壓裂法，或者任何其他保守黨政府為了賺點(diǎn)外快而不懈追求的糟糕想法一樣。

Well_this_is_akward
They are using this 'freedom' to fuck up our heath and sell us cheap nasty food that we used to ban.
They fuck up our environments for a quick bit of profit and then blame the poor for being unhealthy.
This is in the midst of a Climate crisis.

他們正在利用這種“自由”來(lái)破壞我們的健康，并向我們出售我們?cè)?jīng)禁止的廉價(jià)骯臟的食物。
他們就為了一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)快速的利潤(rùn)而破壞我們的環(huán)境，然后還將窮人的不健康歸咎于他們自己。
而且這還是在氣候危機(jī)中。

tamspraggin
I’m a Scottish independence voter. I genuinely want the UK to stay together, I’m not sure how Scotland will survive. But if it’s a choice between a risky independence vs continued tory, then buddy I’m choosing independence

我是蘇格蘭獨(dú)立選民。我真心希望英國(guó)能夠團(tuán)結(jié)在一起，但我不確定蘇格蘭將如何生存下去。但如果要在冒險(xiǎn)的獨(dú)立和繼續(xù)保守黨統(tǒng)治之間做出選擇，伙計(jì)，我選擇獨(dú)立

twowheeledfunBristol/Oxfordshire
If the EU told Brexiteers not to jump off a cliff, they'd jump anyway to flex their 'freedom'.

如果歐盟告訴脫歐派不要跳下懸崖，他們還是會(huì)跳下去以展示他們的“自由”。

brainburgerLondon
Well, its what people voted for. This was one of the more obvious consequences of Brexit. No-one can be surprised.

好吧，這就是人們投票所支持的。這是英國(guó)脫歐更為明顯的后果之一。沒(méi)有人會(huì)感到驚訝的。