UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

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.

Not at all.

The principle underpinned by EU rules is that good hygiene practices must be followed at all stages of production. Chlorine washing is banned - ostensibly at least - because it can be used as a substitute for good hygiene in earlier stages of production. Lactic acid washing would provide dirty producers the same potential cover, and would therefore contravene the stated intention of the EU rules. In other words, if it becomes a thing, you can expect the EU to ban it.

[nomadking]

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.

It's not irrelevant. It is just one of many other EU rules that are merely protectionist in nature. If using lactic acid provides the same level of protection as chlorinated wash, then surely the EU will ban that as well, for the same reasons, whatever they might be.

Originally Posted by jonbxx

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

The EU is insisting on way beyond WTO rules and nothing whatsoever to do with trade.
Link

But the areas in which the EU is most insistent they must be maintained are:

• workers' rights
• environmental protection
• taxation
• state aid (or subsidies for business)

Time and time again whenever these EU rules are introduced the issue of cheaper imports is used in the argument.


The notion of an EU imposed level playing field would also mean we couldn't block EU goods that didn't meet our own higher standards, if we were to introduce any. Eg in the past we had higher standards for UHT milk than the EU and blocked French imports that didn't meet those standards. Guess who had to give way. We would have to follow whatever rules they set.


The EU provides massive levels of state aid to whole countries, eg Poland 9billion/year.

[Sephiroth]

Only asking ... but if chlorine/lactic acid washing kills the surface bacteria, why are we worried about earlier stage hygiene? Just because the EU says so?


---------- Post added at 16:13 ---------- Previous post was at 16:03 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

<SNIP>


The notion of an EU imposed level playing field would also mean we couldn't block EU goods that didn't meet our own higher standards, if we were to introduce any. Eg in the past we had higher standards for UHT milk than the EU and blocked French imports that didn't meet those standards. Guess who had to give way. We would have to follow whatever rules they set.

The EU provides massive levels of state aid to whole countries, eg Poland 9billion/year.

Quite. How can there be a 'level playing field' between the tiny UK versus the collective EU? It is a falsely conceived concept because they are scared stiff of competition. The EU sets throttling rules across their board and then expects us to abide by those rules.

To all Remainers: Sovereignty matters.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The EU is insisting on way beyond WTO rules and nothing whatsoever to do with trade.
Link

I think we're both saying the same thing here! If we are OK with WTO rules only, we get non-discriminatory access to EU markets (MFN status) but also tariffs, rules of origin requirements, no origin cumulations, etc.

It looks like if we want to good stuff, i.e. tariff free access, harmonised standards, mutual recognition of standards and qualifications, rules of origin cumulation etc., the EU are asking for a level playing field beyond WTO rules.

Of course, they can ask, it's up to the UK to do a cost/benefit calculation and decide if it's worth it politically. They could of course ask business what it thinks and wants. If leaving the EU is supposed to reduce red tape, then this should be a good thing

Originally Posted by jonbxx

I think we're both saying the same thing here! If we are OK with WTO rules only, we get non-discriminatory access to EU markets (MFN status) but also tariffs, rules of origin requirements, no origin cumulations, etc.

It looks like if we want to good stuff, i.e. tariff free access, harmonised standards, mutual recognition of standards and qualifications, rules of origin cumulation etc., the EU are asking for a level playing field beyond WTO rules.

Of course, they can ask, it's up to the UK to do a cost/benefit calculation and decide if it's worth it politically. They could of course ask business what it thinks and wants. If leaving the EU is supposed to reduce red tape, then this should be a good thing

https://www.ft.com/content/6cf7bba6-...5-8e03987b7b20

Michael Gove has endorsed claims that up to 50,000 people will have to be recruited to carry out customs paperwork under the government’s preferred Canada-style trade deal with the EU — the equivalent of the population of a medium-sized town.

The Cabinet Office minister was on Thursday pressed by businesses that send goods across borders to provide more cash to help them recruit and train the army of form-fillers needed to process the red tape spawned when Britain exits the transition period on January 1 2021.

Mr Gove was challenged by Labour MP Justin Madders to confirm that 50,000 people would be required to handle the customs declarations needed for trade with the EU and whether it was feasible to recruit them in such a short space of time.

“Yes it is and the government stand behind that,” Mr Gove said. The minister’s allies said that although the 50,000 figure was an industry estimate, it was “not far off” the workforce likely to be needed to fill in customs forms.

Other link to same story - https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news...uiG2?li=AA54rU

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

[COLOR="Blue"]Only asking ... but if chlorine/lactic acid washing kills the surface bacteria, why are we worried about earlier stage hygiene? Just because the EU says so?

The prohibition on end-stage disinfection is supposed to be a disincentive against bad hygiene practices at earlier stages. Which to me makes about as much sense as addressing dangerous driving by banning seatbelts.

Poor farming and slaughtering practices should be dealt with by effective monitoring and enforcement, not by banning a simple, effective way of eradicating potentially lethal bacterial infections right before the meat goes to market.

But, as I said earlier, I don’t buy the EU’s line about it being a simple and effective way of ensuring animal welfare and food hygiene. There have been lobbyists and vested interests at work somewhere - when it comes to EU directives, there always are.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

The prohibition on end-stage disinfection is supposed to be a disincentive against bad hygiene practices at earlier stages. Which to me makes about as much sense as addressing dangerous driving by banning seatbelts.

Poor farming and slaughtering practices should be dealt with by effective monitoring and enforcement, not by banning a simple, effective way of eradicating potentially lethal bacterial infections right before the meat goes to market.

But, as I said earlier, I don’t buy the EU’s line about it being a simple and effective way of ensuring animal welfare and food hygiene. There have been lobbyists and vested interests at work somewhere - when it comes to EU directives, there always are.

This is where we disagree in the context of trade agreements. It's outcomes that matter and if the meat is wholesome and cooks well, then I'd expect harmful bacteria not to be present and washing is as good a way as any.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Not at all.

The principle underpinned by EU rules is that good hygiene practices must be followed at all stages of production. Chlorine washing is banned - ostensibly at least - because it can be used as a substitute for good hygiene in earlier stages of production. Lactic acid washing would provide dirty producers the same potential cover, and would therefore contravene the stated intention of the EU rules. In other words, if it becomes a thing, you can expect the EU to ban it.

The point is, surely, that we will no longer have to obey EU rules.

I see no reason why we shouldn't specify any hygiene requirements that would have to apply in any trade deal with the US.

The government has already confirmed we will not be importing chlorinated chicken, so those who keep re-stating these stories are simply scaremongering.

---------- Post added at 19:06 ---------- Previous post was at 19:04 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

It's not irrelevant. It is just one of many other EU rules that are merely protectionist in nature. If using lactic acid provides the same level of protection as chlorinated wash, then surely the EU will ban that as well, for the same reasons, whatever they might be.

It is irrelevant. The EU rules will not apply from 2021, and in any case, acid is already used on beef.

So it's a non-issue.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The point is, surely, that we will no longer have to obey EU rules.

I see no reason why we shouldn't specify any hygiene requirements that would have to apply in any trade deal with the US.

The government has already confirmed we will not be importing chlorinated chicken, so those who keep re-stating these stories are simply scaremongering.

---------- Post added at 19:06 ---------- Previous post was at 19:04 ----------


It is irrelevant. The EU rules will not apply from 2021, and in any case, acid is already used on beef.

So it's a non-issue.

It's still an issue because the EU are insisting we have to keep doing whatever they tell us to.

BJ and Carrie (now his fiancée) are having a baby - knew he wouldnt respect the withdrawal agreement...

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

BJ and Carrie (now his fiancée) are having a baby - knew he wouldnt respect the withdrawal agreement...

Ah - some hughmour!

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Ah - some hughmour!

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Where's your sense of humour?

[Mr K]

Impregnated out of wedlock ??? A resigning issue for sure . How many kids/partners/wives now ?? Even his Wikipedia page isn't sure about the number of kids...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson

. "Children 5 or 6"

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I've been laughing since December 12th.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I've been laughing since December 12th.

Step away from the mirror, then...