UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

The EU’s massive problem is that it has written a lot of rules that make businesses in the EU inefficient. They have got away with it until now because all the major economies in Europe have been shackled together and protectionism keeps the rest of the world at bay. They now face the prospect of one of the biggest economies in the world on its doorstep not being held back by those rules. The risk to the EU is great. Nevertheless if they think they can deal with it simply by trying to ensure we remain aligned to their rules they’re going to be disappointed. They may hate to admit it but our presence on their doorstep yet outside their laws will ensure we continue to exercise a subtle restraint on their zeal for regulating everything in sight.

Yay! Wasn’t the whole point!

The U.K. are totally correct to advise the “level playing field” can go whistle in the wind.

The EU have forgotten what a competitive free market is,

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

If that was the case, what are the EU getting so awkward about? After all, if it makes no difference to UK waters, why are they so ready to give away access to EU waters?

Not if that's the case that is the case, you know we've even sold of the rights round the Falklands, I think the Norwegians own them.

---------- Post added at 02:21 ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Yay! Wasn’t the whole point!

The U.K. are totally correct to advise the “level playing field” can go whistle in the wind.

The EU have forgotten what a competitive free market is,

There would have been precious little point in leaving at all if we adopt the level playing field

[jonbxx]

The problem with the term 'level playing field' is that it is very broad. Even WTO rules have level playing field clauses around subsidies, intellectual property rights and discriminatory actions against imports.

As the mutually agreed political declaration said about level playing field actions;

The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties. These commitments should prevent distortions of trade and unfair competitive advantages.

Even if we went for an 'Australian deal', AKA 'No deal', AKA 'hard Brexit', there would still be level playing field restrictions.

[nomadking]

The EU meaning of "level playing field" is very different from the WTO. If it wasn't there would be no need for the EU to mention it.
Link

Making trade work for all implies that we also address concerns around the world that competition in the global economy is not ‘fair’, that it is distorted by market barriers and government actions that favour companies and products that are not necessarily the best. A level playing field in global trade means that all countries and firms compete on an equal footing to offer consumers everywhere the widest possible choice and the best value for money.

If anything it is the EU that ignores the WTO level playing field by imposing unnecessary conditions. Classic example of that is the ban on chlorinated chicken. The publicly announced reason by the EU is that it was too safe, in that possible cheaper conditions in the abattoir could be hidden. IE The infection levels in the final product were so low, you couldn't tell the difference between that and a higher standard abattoir. That would also mean the infection level from a higher standard abattoir would be even better than current levels if they used the chlorinated process.
Link

On chlorine-washed chicken, Mr Johnson said the process was the same as that used by EU farmers to treat their fruit and vegetables.
Describing it as a "public safety no-brainer", he insisted it was the most effective and economical way of dealing with "potentially lethal" bacteria such as salmonella and campylobacter.
...
President of the UK's National Farmer's Union (NFU) Minette Batters said that while Mr Johnson was correct in saying chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-fed beef was "safe" to eat, there were other factors that needed considering.
"The difference is welfare standards and environmental protection standards," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Link

It's not consuming chlorine itself that the EU is worried about - in fact in 2005 the European Food Safety Authority said that "exposure to chlorite residues arising from treated poultry carcasses would be of no safety concern". Chlorine-rinsed bagged salads are common in the UK and other countries in the EU.
But the EU believes that relying on a chlorine rinse at the end of the meat production process could be a way of compensating for poor hygiene standards - such as dirty or crowded abattoirs.

The chlorine-washed chicken issue comes up with monotonous regularity, hilariously it is often brought up by Europhiles (and/or America haters, sometimes they’re the same thing) who don’t understand the rationale behind the process, and where and when it may be used, and assume that it must have something to do with chemical poisoning or a finished product that is otherwise unsafe (when in fact a final chlorine rinse ensures chicken is extremely safe).

I suspect to get to the bottom of this you would have to trawl through EU records from the time this issue was discussed and regulated. I’d bet hard cash that somewhere in the paper trail you will find a lobby group with powerful connections in one of the principal member states that pushed for a ban on chlorine washing. It could either be an industry lobby that had already invested in other processes, or it could have been green politicians in a coalition somewhere, forcing their majority partner to make concessions.

Either way it is a talisman for everything that the EU fears might happen in the UK if they don’t secure dynamic alignment. They know perfectly well that the process is safe and cheap. Here, and in a lot of other areas, the UK has the potential to make EU imports look ridiculously expensive by freeing up domestic producers to do things in other, cheaper ways. This is why they don’t want to take the more common trade deal route of mutual recognition of standards. They need continuing alignment in the UK because it is a critically important export market for them, which they fear is about to get much more difficult for them to sell into.

In a mutual recognition scenario, British producers would in some cases be able to sell products in the EU that meet British standards (in others compliance with EU standards might still be required), but in all cases British producers selling in the British market need only comply with British standards. The opportunity to cut costs for British business here is immense, especially as the vast majority of British businesses deal only domestically.

My understanding is that the chlorine thing is perfectly safe but that the reason for it's existance in America is lower handling and raising standards generally whereas chicken is still perfectly safe here and within the EU due to other regulations.



So as long as those farming standards continue to be met then I don't see the problem. That said instinctively I would likely steer away from chlorine washing chicken because it sounds weird. In the same way I tend to avoid meat packed in plastic prefering to eat less of it but buy it from a butcher when I do. Mass produced meat just feels instinctively bad.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Damien

My understanding is that the chlorine thing is perfectly safe but that the reason for it's existance in America is lower handling and raising standards generally whereas chicken is still perfectly safe here and within the EU due to other regulations.



So as long as those farming standards continue to be met then I don't see the problem. That said instinctively I would likely steer away from chlorine washing chicken because it sounds weird. In the same way I tend to avoid meat packed in plastic prefering to eat less of it but buy it from a butcher when I do. Mass produced meat just feels instinctively bad.

Do you steer away from tap water and pre washed salad.

If chlorine washed chicken is on the shelf no one will force you to buy it.

It’s that “instinctively weird” aspect of it that has allowed those with a very pro-EU and anti-US agenda to make hay out of the chlorine-washed chicken issue. They’re relying on general public ignorance of science and food hygiene to make political points.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The EU meaning of "level playing field" is very different from the WTO. If it wasn't there would be no need for the EU to mention it.
Link

I agree, the depth and intensity of the level playing field with the EU is much stronger. However, what I was saying is that even with the least strong trade agreement with the EU, namely WTO rules, there are level playing field requirements.

As the political declaration states, the nature of the commitments will depend on the level of openness of the UK and EU markets to each other. There isn't a level playing field or no level playing field, there's going to be a lot of horse trading over the next few months.

Of course, Boris Johnson said that there will no regression of at least environmental standards and employment rights so there's nothing to worry about there at least

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Do you steer away from tap water and pre washed salad.

If chlorine washed chicken is on the shelf no one will force you to buy it.

So...

First of all you chose to ignore the top part of the response. which equates to the following

European FSA says they have “no safety concerns” with the chlorination of chicken.

However they also say that this practice might not be sufficient for maintaining good hygiene standards throughout the slaughter process.

Secondly you're absolutely right, no one will force you to buy it, providing their is enough information provided to the consumer to make that choice.

It's the same with hormone injected beef (again currently banned by the EU) If it is agreed to then so long as consumers are presented with clear information regarding source and content then it's on the consumer to decide.

My concern is that consumers won't have the information readily provided in a clear format they need given to them in order for them to be able to make an informed decision.

It's not as though manufacturers have ever tried to hide things from the consumer before is it....

[Mr K]

KFC -Kentucky Fried Chlorinated?? Can't see it going down well. If there are decent hygiene standards, which there are in the EU, it isn't necessary. Low US standards are the issue.

---------- Post added at 12:22 ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

It’s that “instinctively weird” aspect of it that has allowed those with a very pro-EU and anti-US agenda to make hay out of the chlorine-washed chicken issue. They’re relying on general public ignorance of science and food hygiene to make political points.

That sounds a familiar campaigning tactic !

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

I agree, the depth and intensity of the level playing field with the EU is much stronger. However, what I was saying is that even with the least strong trade agreement with the EU, namely WTO rules, there are level playing field requirements.

As the political declaration states, the nature of the commitments will depend on the level of openness of the UK and EU markets to each other. There isn't a level playing field or no level playing field, there's going to be a lot of horse trading over the next few months.

Of course, Boris Johnson said that there will no regression of at least environmental standards and employment rights so there's nothing to worry about there at least

But not ones to be imposed in one direction by the EU, very above and beyond WTO rules(eg tax), and all with no say in those rules.


If the end product is safe, then that should be the end of it. How is washing with just air and water safer than washing with air, water, and chlorine wash? Are we really expected to believe that conditions in Eastern European countries match those in Germany?

[OLD BOY]

Just in case it has been lost on anyone here, banning chlorinated chicken will not mean that we cannot import American poultry. Chlorination is being phased out in the States in favour of lactic acid washing, which we already permit in relation to the sale of beef.

So this whole debate is irrelevant.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by nomadking

But not ones to be imposed in one direction by the EU, very above and beyond WTO rules(eg tax), and all with no say in those rules.


If the end product is safe, then that should be the end of it. How is washing with just air and water safer than washing with air, water, and chlorine wash? Are we really expected to believe that conditions in Eastern European countries match those in Germany?

That's what I am saying, if we want to be part of the WTO, there has to be a degree of level playing field rules in place. All it comes down to now, is how much further access we want to the EU markets and how much we are prepared to sacrifice to get that access. If nothing, at present it looks like WTO rules which, as I have said, includes those mild level playing field rules already in place.

I haven't really been taking part in the food standards chat but if you were to compare eastern Europe food with German food, then we know that all comply with a minimum standard at least set by the EU. If we relaxed our food standards below EU rules, then if businesses choose to import food that falls below those standards, then we won't be able to process and export to the that food to the EU without sophisticated rules of origin in place. It's our choice

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Just in case it has been lost on anyone here, banning chlorinated chicken will not mean that we cannot import American poultry. Chlorination is being phased out in the States in favour of lactic acid washing, which we already permit in relation to the sale of beef.

So this whole debate is irrelevant.

You have a link for that OB?