网友讨论：英国考虑利用英国脱欧的“自由”，允许在食品上使用欧盟禁止的杀虫剂
正文翻译
(The chemicals are banned from domestic production but can still be imported on food.)
（这些化学物质被禁止用在国内生产上，但仍可用于进口食品。）
新闻：
UK considers using Brexit ‘freedom’ to allow pesticides banned in EU on food
-American agricultural lobby groups had criticised some of the import bans
英国考虑利用英国脱欧的“自由”，允许在食品上使用欧盟禁止的杀虫剂
——美国农业游说团体批评了一些进口禁令
-American agricultural lobby groups had criticised some of the import bans
英国考虑利用英国脱欧的“自由”，允许在食品上使用欧盟禁止的杀虫剂
——美国农业游说团体批评了一些进口禁令
(The chemicals are banned from domestic production but can still be imported on food.)
（这些化学物质被禁止用在国内生产上，但仍可用于进口食品。）
新闻：
The government is considering using its new Brexit regulatory freedom to allow pesticides banned in the EU on food imported to the UK.
政府正考虑利用其新的英国脱欧的监管自由，允许英国进口的食品使用欧盟禁止使用的农药。
政府正考虑利用其新的英国脱欧的监管自由，允许英国进口的食品使用欧盟禁止使用的农药。
Brussels announced it was banning 10 pesticides on imported fruit and veg in February last year and the UK was at the time widely expected in to follow suit. But over a year later the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra) says no decision has yet been made on whether Britain will follow the EU or continue to permit the chemicals on food.
布鲁塞尔去年2月宣布，将禁止进口水果和蔬菜使用10种杀虫剂，当时人们普遍预计英国也会效仿。但一年多过去了，英国环境、食品和农村事务部表示，英国还没有决定是追随欧盟，还是继续允许在食品中使用化学物质。
布鲁塞尔去年2月宣布，将禁止进口水果和蔬菜使用10种杀虫剂，当时人们普遍预计英国也会效仿。但一年多过去了，英国环境、食品和农村事务部表示，英国还没有决定是追随欧盟，还是继续允许在食品中使用化学物质。
All the pesticides have not been allowed for use by domestic farmers in either the UK or EU for some years, but were still allowed for imports from outside the bloc subject to “maximum residue levels” checked by border staff.
英国或欧盟的国内农民多年来都不允许使用这些农药，但从欧盟以外的国家进口的农药仍然可以使用，但边境工作人员检查的“最大残留水平”仍受到限制。
英国或欧盟的国内农民多年来都不允许使用这些农药，但从欧盟以外的国家进口的农药仍然可以使用，但边境工作人员检查的“最大残留水平”仍受到限制。
But last year Brussels regulation 2021/155 cut the maximum residue levels (MRLs) for all the chemicals to the lowest possible level allowed under EU law – effectively banning their use on food destined for the continent.
但去年，布鲁塞尔的2021/155号法规将所有化学物质的最大残留水平降至欧盟法律允许的最低水平，从而有效地禁止在运往欧洲大陆的食品中使用这些化学物质。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
但去年，布鲁塞尔的2021/155号法规将所有化学物质的最大残留水平降至欧盟法律允许的最低水平，从而有效地禁止在运往欧洲大陆的食品中使用这些化学物质。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The change was announced by the European Commission in February 2021 and took effect in September last year, but the UK has not yet decided whether to follow suit for most of the chemicals.
欧盟委员会于2021年2月宣布了这一改变，并于去年9月生效，但英国尚未决定是否对大多数化学品采取同样的措施。
欧盟委员会于2021年2月宣布了这一改变，并于去年9月生效，但英国尚未决定是否对大多数化学品采取同样的措施。
The chemicals in question are carbon tetrachloride, chlorothalonil, chlorpropham, ethoprophos, fenamidone, methiocarb, propiconazole and pymetrozine. Two further chemicals, dimethoate and omethoate, were also banned by the regulation and have also since been banned on food imported to the UK.
所涉及的化学品是四氯化碳、百菌清、氯丙烷、乙草磷、虫胺酮、甲氧威、丙环唑和吡虫嗪。另外两种化学物质，乐果和氧乐果，也被该法规禁止，并已在进口到英国的食品中被禁止。
所涉及的化学品是四氯化碳、百菌清、氯丙烷、乙草磷、虫胺酮、甲氧威、丙环唑和吡虫嗪。另外两种化学物质，乐果和氧乐果，也被该法规禁止，并已在进口到英国的食品中被禁止。
The eight chemicals that are still permitted on imports to the UK but not EU were banned for a variety of reasons: chlorothalonil, a fungicide, is considered potentially carcinogenic and is judged to be a possible groundwater contaminant.
英国仍允许进口但欧盟不允许进口的八种化学物质被禁止，原因有很多：杀菌剂百菌清被认为是潜在的致癌物质，并被判定为可能的地下水污染物。
英国仍允许进口但欧盟不允许进口的八种化学物质被禁止，原因有很多：杀菌剂百菌清被认为是潜在的致癌物质，并被判定为可能的地下水污染物。
Propiconazole, another fungicide used by American rice farmers, is considered “toxic to reproduction”, meaning it is classed as potentially dangerous to babies in the womb. Meanwhile chlorpropham, a chemical used to prevent potato sprouting by American farmers, is banned for domestic use in the EU and UK due to toxicity concerns.
美国稻农使用的另一种杀菌剂丙环唑被认为“对生殖有害”，这意味着它被列为对子宫内的婴儿有潜在危险。与此同时，由于毒性问题，欧盟和英国禁止在国内使用美国农民用来防止马铃薯发芽的化学物质氯丙烷。
美国稻农使用的另一种杀菌剂丙环唑被认为“对生殖有害”，这意味着它被列为对子宫内的婴儿有潜在危险。与此同时，由于毒性问题，欧盟和英国禁止在国内使用美国农民用来防止马铃薯发芽的化学物质氯丙烷。
The widespread use of the chemicals by US farmers and the foot-dragging by the UK government has raised eyebrows among campaigners, who are suspicious that the UK may be concerned banning the pesticides could jeopardise a future trade agreement with the US and other countries with lax standards.
美国农民广泛使用农药和英国政府的拖延，令活动人士感到惊讶，他们怀疑英国可能担心，禁止农药可能会危及未来与美国和其他标准宽松的国家达成的贸易协议。
美国农民广泛使用农药和英国政府的拖延，令活动人士感到惊讶，他们怀疑英国可能担心，禁止农药可能会危及未来与美国和其他标准宽松的国家达成的贸易协议。
The US rice industry described the ban on propiconazole as “frustrating” in April last year, while the country’s potato industry has described steps to restrict chlorpropham as “disappointing”.
美国大米行业称，去年4月对丙环唑的禁令“令人沮丧”，而美国土豆行业则称，限制氯苯胺灵的措施“令人失望”。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
美国大米行业称，去年4月对丙环唑的禁令“令人沮丧”，而美国土豆行业则称，限制氯苯胺灵的措施“令人失望”。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The Defra press office declined to provide a quote for this article but confirmed that no decision had yet been taken on the eight chemicals that were as yet not banned for import to the UK. The department did not give a timescale but said decisions would be made in “due course” and independently of the EU.
英国环境食品和乡村事务部新闻办公室拒绝为本文提供引用，但证实尚未就尚未禁止进口到英国的八种化学品作出决定。事务部没有给出时间表，但表示将在“适当时候”做出决定，而且将独立于欧盟。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
英国环境食品和乡村事务部新闻办公室拒绝为本文提供引用，但证实尚未就尚未禁止进口到英国的八种化学品作出决定。事务部没有给出时间表，但表示将在“适当时候”做出决定，而且将独立于欧盟。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Defra highlighted that it had taken action equivalent to the EU import ban on two of the chemicals, dimoethoate and omethoate, and said that decisions about which pesticides to permit on food were based on robust scientific assessments.
英国环境食品和乡村事务部强调，它已经采取了相当于欧盟对其中两种化学品——二甲氧乐果和乐果——实施进口禁令的行动，并表示，允许在食品中使用哪种杀虫剂的决定是基于强有力的科学评估。
英国环境食品和乡村事务部强调，它已经采取了相当于欧盟对其中两种化学品——二甲氧乐果和乐果——实施进口禁令的行动，并表示，允许在食品中使用哪种杀虫剂的决定是基于强有力的科学评估。
Friends of the Earth campaigner Kierra Box told The Independent: “We’ve known for years that these pesticides pose health risks, which is why the UK already has some restrictions in place to limit residues of these chemicals on imported food.
“地球之友”活动人士科拉·博克斯告诉《独立报》：“我们多年来就知道这些农药会对健康造成危害，这就是为什么英国已经出台了一些限制进口食品中这些化学物质残留的措施。”
“地球之友”活动人士科拉·博克斯告诉《独立报》：“我们多年来就知道这些农药会对健康造成危害，这就是为什么英国已经出台了一些限制进口食品中这些化学物质残留的措施。”
“However, the EU has already tightened the rules, so why hasn’t the UK followed suit?
“然而，欧盟已经收紧了规则，那么为什么英国没有效仿呢？”
“然而，欧盟已经收紧了规则，那么为什么英国没有效仿呢？”
“Any suggestion that prospective trade deals with countries that commonly use these pesticides may have influenced delays to these reassessments would be deeply concerning.
“任何关于与普遍使用这些杀虫剂的国家可能达成的贸易协定可能影响到重新评估工作推迟的说法，都将令人深感担忧。
“任何关于与普遍使用这些杀虫剂的国家可能达成的贸易协定可能影响到重新评估工作推迟的说法，都将令人深感担忧。
“We mustn’t trade away health and environment safeguards for the sake of a few pounds or use the UK’s newfound ‘regulatory freedom’ to trash standards that protect people and planet, rather than raise them.”
“我们不能为了几英镑的利益而放弃健康和环境保护措施，也不能利用英国新获得的‘监管自由’来废弃那些保护人类和地球的标准，而不是提高这些标准。”
“我们不能为了几英镑的利益而放弃健康和环境保护措施，也不能利用英国新获得的‘监管自由’来废弃那些保护人类和地球的标准，而不是提高这些标准。”
An investigation by Greenpeace's Unearthed unit published in February found that British companies had shipped more than 10,000 tonnes of banned pesticides overseas in 2020, including propiconazole.
绿色和平组织下属机构“发掘”了今年2月发布的一项调查发现，英国公司在2020年向海外出口了逾1万吨禁用农药，其中包括丙环唑。
绿色和平组织下属机构“发掘”了今年2月发布的一项调查发现，英国公司在2020年向海外出口了逾1万吨禁用农药，其中包括丙环唑。
Greenpeace UK’s policy director Dr Doug Parr described the practice of exporting chemicals banned in the UK to be used overseas on food to be imported back to Britain as a “toxic boomerang”.
绿色和平组织英国政策主任道格·帕尔博士称，将英国禁止的化学物质出口到海外用于食品，再进口回英国的做法是“有毒的回旋镖”。
绿色和平组织英国政策主任道格·帕尔博士称，将英国禁止的化学物质出口到海外用于食品，再进口回英国的做法是“有毒的回旋镖”。
“Our European neighbours have realised that flogging abroad harmful pesticides that are banned at home doesn’t make sense,” he told The Independent.
他在接受《独立报》采访时表示：“我们的欧洲邻国已经意识到，在国外销售国内禁止的有害农药是没有道理的。”
他在接受《独立报》采访时表示：“我们的欧洲邻国已经意识到，在国外销售国内禁止的有害农药是没有道理的。”
“It makes even less sense if traces of those chemicals come back to the sender and on our dinner plate via imported food like a toxic boomerang.
“如果这些化学物质通过进口食品回到发送者和我们的餐盘上——就像有毒的回旋镖一样，那就更没有道理了。”
“如果这些化学物质通过进口食品回到发送者和我们的餐盘上——就像有毒的回旋镖一样，那就更没有道理了。”
“And yet the UK government continues to allow companies to export thousands of tonnes of highly toxic, banned pesticides while showing little appetite for restricting the amount of harmful chemicals in the food we import.
“然而，英国政府继续允许企业出口数千吨剧毒、被禁用的农药，同时却对限制我们进口的食品中有害化学物质的数量几乎不感兴趣。”
“然而，英国政府继续允许企业出口数千吨剧毒、被禁用的农药，同时却对限制我们进口的食品中有害化学物质的数量几乎不感兴趣。”
“Ministers should not let our environmental standards fall behind those in force across the Channel. Britain should be leading out in front by banning this toxic trade and promoting a healthier food system for people and nature.”
“大臣们不应该让我们的环境标准落后于英吉利海峡对岸的现行标准。英国应该带头禁止这种有毒的贸易，并为人类和自然促进一个更健康的食品系统。”
“大臣们不应该让我们的环境标准落后于英吉利海峡对岸的现行标准。英国应该带头禁止这种有毒的贸易，并为人类和自然促进一个更健康的食品系统。”
评论翻译
Good-Helicopter-9303
Which pesticide company MP is part owner of I wonder.
我想知道首相是哪家农药公司的股东。
Which pesticide company MP is part owner of I wonder.
我想知道首相是哪家农药公司的股东。
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.
事实上，英国脱欧在食品方面总是会降低我们的标准，做一些垃圾的事情。因为欧盟从未限制我们制定更高的标准。
他们会用转基因食品和孟山都现在的新噱头来淹没我们。在食物上喷洒癌症物质，杀死更多的蜜蜂。没关系，反正有非常昂贵的孟山都机器人蜜蜂！
转基因食品本身并不坏，但是它打开的潘多拉盒子里包含了许多可怕的东西和虐待我们的方法。当不受监管的时候，它就像tmd蛮荒的西部，可以很容易地通过破坏生态系统和抗生素引起流行病…加拿大已经对此感到震惊了。此外，还有专利法和咄咄逼人的入侵策略来牢牢控制农民。
对这个国家来说，以邪恶疏忽的方式生产的转基因食品，以及由这个犯罪的政府推行的可怕的杀虫剂，比那个疯狂的普京按下红色按钮的威胁更大。
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.
事实上，英国脱欧在食品方面总是会降低我们的标准，做一些垃圾的事情。因为欧盟从未限制我们制定更高的标准。
他们会用转基因食品和孟山都现在的新噱头来淹没我们。在食物上喷洒癌症物质，杀死更多的蜜蜂。没关系，反正有非常昂贵的孟山都机器人蜜蜂！
转基因食品本身并不坏，但是它打开的潘多拉盒子里包含了许多可怕的东西和虐待我们的方法。当不受监管的时候，它就像tmd蛮荒的西部，可以很容易地通过破坏生态系统和抗生素引起流行病…加拿大已经对此感到震惊了。此外，还有专利法和咄咄逼人的入侵策略来牢牢控制农民。
对这个国家来说，以邪恶疏忽的方式生产的转基因食品，以及由这个犯罪的政府推行的可怕的杀虫剂，比那个疯狂的普京按下红色按钮的威胁更大。
small_trunksYorkshire
Thus reducing their ability even further to sell to the EU. Way to go boys.
因此进一步降低了他们向欧盟出售产品的能力。干得好，小伙子们。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Thus reducing their ability even further to sell to the EU. Way to go boys.
因此进一步降低了他们向欧盟出售产品的能力。干得好，小伙子们。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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.
某些农药在欧盟（以及英国）被禁止使用，但这并不影响从那些继续使用这些农药的地方进口产品——一些农民对此也直言不讳，因为这让他们处于竞争劣势。
欧盟对大多数商业化的转基因产品也有同样的问题，这些产品实际上是被禁止的，除了少数几个成员国，但可以用来喂养牛和进口转基因肉类产品。
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.
某些农药在欧盟（以及英国）被禁止使用，但这并不影响从那些继续使用这些农药的地方进口产品——一些农民对此也直言不讳，因为这让他们处于竞争劣势。
欧盟对大多数商业化的转基因产品也有同样的问题，这些产品实际上是被禁止的，除了少数几个成员国，但可以用来喂养牛和进口转基因肉类产品。
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.
尽管我们知道我们正在糟蹋整个地球，但还是有人投入了大量的精力来寻找加速这一进程的方法。他们真的是邪恶的吗？我从来没有真正接受过这种邪恶论，但也没有太多其他的解释了。
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.
尽管我们知道我们正在糟蹋整个地球，但还是有人投入了大量的精力来寻找加速这一进程的方法。他们真的是邪恶的吗？我从来没有真正接受过这种邪恶论，但也没有太多其他的解释了。
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。我觉得婴儿潮一代的最后一次欢呼是在他们去世之前尽可能多地对环境、他们的孩子和未来的一代泼粪。
因此，学生贷款突然变成了要还到60岁。不能要孩子，到了那个年龄又没有房子也没有积蓄，我们得确保他们在去那里的途中遭受更多的痛苦。婴儿潮时期出生的人把核战争带回来只是为了好玩……。
他们正在进行最后的狂欢，老实说，他们开始觉得他们知道自己留下了一个tmd烂摊子，尽管有警告，但他们不想改变，现在他们非常想看看，在他们崩溃之前，他们能制造多大的灾难。
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。我觉得婴儿潮一代的最后一次欢呼是在他们去世之前尽可能多地对环境、他们的孩子和未来的一代泼粪。
因此，学生贷款突然变成了要还到60岁。不能要孩子，到了那个年龄又没有房子也没有积蓄，我们得确保他们在去那里的途中遭受更多的痛苦。婴儿潮时期出生的人把核战争带回来只是为了好玩……。
他们正在进行最后的狂欢，老实说，他们开始觉得他们知道自己留下了一个tmd烂摊子，尽管有警告，但他们不想改变，现在他们非常想看看，在他们崩溃之前，他们能制造多大的灾难。
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.
我记得人们尖叫着说英国脱欧是好事，因为它把权力交还给了我们的政府。
是的。让我们把更多的权力交给保守党政府。好主意，我敢肯定他们会利用这一点来造福那些投了票的白痴，而不是他们自己和他们的富人朋友。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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.
我记得人们尖叫着说英国脱欧是好事，因为它把权力交还给了我们的政府。
是的。让我们把更多的权力交给保守党政府。好主意，我敢肯定他们会利用这一点来造福那些投了票的白痴，而不是他们自己和他们的富人朋友。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
NeatCleanMonster
We don't want shitty poisoned American produce happening in our country please!!
我们不希望有毒的美国生产在我们国家发生，拜托！！
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
We don't want shitty poisoned American produce happening in our country please!!
我们不希望有毒的美国生产在我们国家发生，拜托！！
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
RassimoFlom
52% said they did.
52%的人说他们希望。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
52% said they did.
52%的人说他们希望。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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..
显然，在我们还在欧盟的时候，另外48%的人也对它表示满意，因为这篇文章是在猜测英国是否会跟随欧盟法规的变化。
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..
显然，在我们还在欧盟的时候，另外48%的人也对它表示满意，因为这篇文章是在猜测英国是否会跟随欧盟法规的变化。
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.
实际上，我不认为那48%的人知道所有被禁用的不同类型的农药，以及每种农药的安全和环境信息。那是专家的工作。
在英国脱欧期间，摆在我们面前的问题是，我们是想继续保持与欧盟同等或更高的标准，还是想离开欧盟，向更低的标准敞开大门？我们选择了后者。
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.
实际上，我不认为那48%的人知道所有被禁用的不同类型的农药，以及每种农药的安全和环境信息。那是专家的工作。
在英国脱欧期间，摆在我们面前的问题是，我们是想继续保持与欧盟同等或更高的标准，还是想离开欧盟，向更低的标准敞开大门？我们选择了后者。
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?
“实际上，我不认为那48%的人知道所有被禁用的不同类型的农药，以及每种农药的安全和环境信息。那是专家的工作”
当然，大多数人不知道，除非他们有兴趣。
“在英国脱欧期间，摆在我们面前的问题是，我们是想继续保持与欧盟同等或更高的标准，还是想离开欧盟，向更低的标准敞开大门？我们选择了后者”
不，我不认为这是选哪一个，或者脱欧伴随的问题，毕竟，总体上英国在相当多的领域都有高于欧盟最低标准的标准（但显然，当英国还在欧盟时是无法阻止商品进口的）。当然，与现在相比，英国作为欧盟成员国时对共同签署的协议的控制权更小。
把英国脱欧描绘成追求更低标准的做法基本上是错误的（尽管这是一个方便的手段，因为人们现在实际上对降低标准的概念感到困扰，所以在一定程度上我认为这种叙事是有效果的）。我的意思是，这篇文章是关于英国还没有对英国已经禁止（生产，而不是进口）的杀虫剂实施类似的措施，如果英国是在寻求更低的标准，那么是否也可以说，欧盟一直在寻求降低标准（比如在动物福利方面），这与英国提高标准的变化不相匹配呢？
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?
“实际上，我不认为那48%的人知道所有被禁用的不同类型的农药，以及每种农药的安全和环境信息。那是专家的工作”
当然，大多数人不知道，除非他们有兴趣。
“在英国脱欧期间，摆在我们面前的问题是，我们是想继续保持与欧盟同等或更高的标准，还是想离开欧盟，向更低的标准敞开大门？我们选择了后者”
不，我不认为这是选哪一个，或者脱欧伴随的问题，毕竟，总体上英国在相当多的领域都有高于欧盟最低标准的标准（但显然，当英国还在欧盟时是无法阻止商品进口的）。当然，与现在相比，英国作为欧盟成员国时对共同签署的协议的控制权更小。
把英国脱欧描绘成追求更低标准的做法基本上是错误的（尽管这是一个方便的手段，因为人们现在实际上对降低标准的概念感到困扰，所以在一定程度上我认为这种叙事是有效果的）。我的意思是，这篇文章是关于英国还没有对英国已经禁止（生产，而不是进口）的杀虫剂实施类似的措施，如果英国是在寻求更低的标准，那么是否也可以说，欧盟一直在寻求降低标准（比如在动物福利方面），这与英国提高标准的变化不相匹配呢？
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.
我认为未来的标准和现在的标准没有什么不同。如果欧盟未来提高或引入一项标准，那么欧盟成员国将达成一项协议，遵守或超出该标准，但英国不会。如果我们的目标是在商业上更具竞争力，那么这通常会导致英国的监管水平较低。
“把英国脱欧描绘成追求更低标准的做法基本上是错误的”
脱欧选民确实谈到了摆脱欧盟的繁琐程序， 因为监管是如此繁重，尤其是那些外国人“强加”的监管（尽管欧盟法规的数量必然要比由27个成员国单独决定和颁布的相同法规要少）
“那么是否也可以说，欧盟一直在寻求降低标准（比如在动物福利方面），这与英国提高标准的变化不相匹配呢？”
是的，我不觉得这有什么争议。这些规则中的大多数都是为了在对商业有利和对人类、动物或环境有利之间进行权衡而制定的。在大多数情况下，如果成员愿意，他们可以有更高的标准。情况仍然如此，但商业压力实际上会降低这些标准。每个成年人都可以获得这些信息。这由他们自主选择。
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.
我认为未来的标准和现在的标准没有什么不同。如果欧盟未来提高或引入一项标准，那么欧盟成员国将达成一项协议，遵守或超出该标准，但英国不会。如果我们的目标是在商业上更具竞争力，那么这通常会导致英国的监管水平较低。
“把英国脱欧描绘成追求更低标准的做法基本上是错误的”
脱欧选民确实谈到了摆脱欧盟的繁琐程序， 因为监管是如此繁重，尤其是那些外国人“强加”的监管（尽管欧盟法规的数量必然要比由27个成员国单独决定和颁布的相同法规要少）
“那么是否也可以说，欧盟一直在寻求降低标准（比如在动物福利方面），这与英国提高标准的变化不相匹配呢？”
是的，我不觉得这有什么争议。这些规则中的大多数都是为了在对商业有利和对人类、动物或环境有利之间进行权衡而制定的。在大多数情况下，如果成员愿意，他们可以有更高的标准。情况仍然如此，但商业压力实际上会降低这些标准。每个成年人都可以获得这些信息。这由他们自主选择。
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.
“我认为未来的标准和现在的标准没有什么不同。如果欧盟未来提高或引入一项标准，那么欧盟成员国将达成一项协议，遵守或超出该标准，但英国不会”
不，当然不会，因为英国不是欧盟成员国了。同样，欧盟也不会被迫满足任何更高的英国标准。本质上，双方都必须在贸易货物方面达到其他国家的标准，但在国内监管方面，他们可以按照自己认为合适的方式进行监管。
“如果我们的目标是在商业上更具竞争力，那么这通常会导致英国的监管水平较低”
这是假设欧盟的目标是降低竞争力，或者在寻求竞争力时更高的标准是一个问题。我认为这是完全错误的，标准是用来提供高质量和安全的商品和服务的……为了增强竞争力。很明显，当标准作为一种阻止进入的手段或者是有效的保护主义时，你可能会争论，而欧盟（以及现在的英国）确实看到了一点，但这实际上不是关于标准的讨论，而是关于贸易壁垒的讨论。
“脱欧选民确实谈到了摆脱欧盟的繁琐程序， 因为监管是如此繁重，尤其是那些外国人‘强加’的监管（尽管欧盟法规的数量必然要比由27个成员国单独决定和颁布的相同法规要少）”
当然，如果你看看共同农业政策，增值税规则，修改法规的过程，比如转基因食品的措施，他们说得有道理。它并不是建议废除所有的标准（或者甚至是全面削减），但要确保英国有适当的高标准，以促进贸易和促进竞争，而且这些标准是灵活的（能以证据来修改）和管理良好的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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.
“我认为未来的标准和现在的标准没有什么不同。如果欧盟未来提高或引入一项标准，那么欧盟成员国将达成一项协议，遵守或超出该标准，但英国不会”
不，当然不会，因为英国不是欧盟成员国了。同样，欧盟也不会被迫满足任何更高的英国标准。本质上，双方都必须在贸易货物方面达到其他国家的标准，但在国内监管方面，他们可以按照自己认为合适的方式进行监管。
“如果我们的目标是在商业上更具竞争力，那么这通常会导致英国的监管水平较低”
这是假设欧盟的目标是降低竞争力，或者在寻求竞争力时更高的标准是一个问题。我认为这是完全错误的，标准是用来提供高质量和安全的商品和服务的……为了增强竞争力。很明显，当标准作为一种阻止进入的手段或者是有效的保护主义时，你可能会争论，而欧盟（以及现在的英国）确实看到了一点，但这实际上不是关于标准的讨论，而是关于贸易壁垒的讨论。
“脱欧选民确实谈到了摆脱欧盟的繁琐程序， 因为监管是如此繁重，尤其是那些外国人‘强加’的监管（尽管欧盟法规的数量必然要比由27个成员国单独决定和颁布的相同法规要少）”
当然，如果你看看共同农业政策，增值税规则，修改法规的过程，比如转基因食品的措施，他们说得有道理。它并不是建议废除所有的标准（或者甚至是全面削减），但要确保英国有适当的高标准，以促进贸易和促进竞争，而且这些标准是灵活的（能以证据来修改）和管理良好的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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.
也许，我们国家正在倒退。我们认为我们是世界领袖，但我们远远不是。全世界都在嘲笑我们，还有我们愚蠢的领导人。重新加入欧盟，共同努力赢得尊重吧。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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.
也许，我们国家正在倒退。我们认为我们是世界领袖，但我们远远不是。全世界都在嘲笑我们，还有我们愚蠢的领导人。重新加入欧盟，共同努力赢得尊重吧。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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.
说“英国”在考虑这一点，意味着不是一小部分统治精英在考虑这一点。当然，我们不希望食物里有违禁物质，就像我们不希望未经处理的污水排入我们的淡水中，或者推广水力压裂法，或者任何其他保守党政府为了赚点外快而不懈追求的糟糕想法一样。
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.
说“英国”在考虑这一点，意味着不是一小部分统治精英在考虑这一点。当然，我们不希望食物里有违禁物质，就像我们不希望未经处理的污水排入我们的淡水中，或者推广水力压裂法，或者任何其他保守党政府为了赚点外快而不懈追求的糟糕想法一样。
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.
他们正在利用这种“自由”来破坏我们的健康，并向我们出售我们曾经禁止的廉价肮脏的食物。
他们就为了一点点快速的利润而破坏我们的环境，然后还将穷人的不健康归咎于他们自己。
而且这还是在气候危机中。
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.
他们正在利用这种“自由”来破坏我们的健康，并向我们出售我们曾经禁止的廉价肮脏的食物。
他们就为了一点点快速的利润而破坏我们的环境，然后还将穷人的不健康归咎于他们自己。
而且这还是在气候危机中。
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
我是苏格兰独立选民。我真心希望英国能够团结在一起，但我不确定苏格兰将如何生存下去。但如果要在冒险的独立和继续保守党统治之间做出选择，伙计，我选择独立
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
我是苏格兰独立选民。我真心希望英国能够团结在一起，但我不确定苏格兰将如何生存下去。但如果要在冒险的独立和继续保守党统治之间做出选择，伙计，我选择独立
twowheeledfunBristol/Oxfordshire
If the EU told Brexiteers not to jump off a cliff, they'd jump anyway to flex their 'freedom'.
如果欧盟告诉脱欧派不要跳下悬崖，他们还是会跳下去以展示他们的“自由”。
If the EU told Brexiteers not to jump off a cliff, they'd jump anyway to flex their 'freedom'.
如果欧盟告诉脱欧派不要跳下悬崖，他们还是会跳下去以展示他们的“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，这就是人们投票所支持的。这是英国脱欧更为明显的后果之一。没有人会感到惊讶的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Well, its what people voted for. This was one of the more obvious consequences of Brexit. No-one can be surprised.
好吧，这就是人们投票所支持的。这是英国脱欧更为明显的后果之一。没有人会感到惊讶的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
很赞 1
收藏