Brexit discussion thread II

joeysoap

steddyeddy wrote: »

What made them think they could fish in Icelandic waters?

Think they always did ( might is right stuff) but the Icelanders realised that it was their livelihood that was threatened, I can renember Icelandic gunboats (that's all they were) cutting the lines of the British trawlers and the trawler skippers saying how dangerous that was ( I have no doubt it was dangerous). The uk sent in the Royal Navy to protect the trawlers but even so the smaller Icelandic vessels were able to get in close and continue cutting the lines. To be fair to the RN they never at any stage threatened to do a Belgrano on the Icelandic gun boats. Maybe Denmark or the other Scandi countries had something to do with that. I think the Labour Party were in power, maybe if the Tories were in power they would have been more beligorant.

I am enjoying following this thread, but there's a lot of speculation on it too, really until we know how the talks are progressing it's all just that , speculation, and whether it's soft or hard we just don't know at this stage.

But what we do know is that certain elements of the British 'establishment' resents relinquishing control of what they see as their absolute right to mere civil servants, especially if they have no influence over them. To that end they were successful in persuading a majority of UK voters to side with them.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Jeremy Corbyn wants a soft Bexit so won't be much help from there.


One alternative would be to scare them straight, EU could hint that the UK would be getting a trade war instead of just no deal. (If the UK sign up for GMO and US food standards and US data sharing and US monopolies and US liberalisation of Stock Market rules then it could be Shields UP and Good Luck because EU law blocks a lot of that stuff already)


Then again scaring the UK electorate is how they ended up with Brexit so probably won't work.

Not by many people's definition of the idea.

I invite you to compare and contrast his position with Theresa May's for instance.

oppenheimer1

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

True but the nature of FPTP caused the referendum.

I disagree. A PR-STV system would mean there would be a significant UKIP presence in Parliament.

Capt'n Midnight

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I disagree. A PR-STV system would mean there would be a significant UKIP presence in Parliament.

Look how that's worked here with the small parties like SF PBP

"it's better to have them in the tent píssing out than outside the tent píssing in"

you get a more representative group, and less exclusion.



Then again UKIP were slaughtered in the local elections because the Tories took their thunder so meh

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

Not by many people's definition of the idea.

I invite you to compare and contrast his position with Theresa May's for instance.

OK , softer

At least he'd keep the EU human rights or stuff workers like.

May is throwing out the baby with the bathwater in order to - well what exactly ? - without the ECJ a home secretary would find it easier to deport people. But her record at that job makes it look like she might have been looking for an easy out rather than doing it within the existing framework , but it would take more work.

Peregrinus

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I disagree. A PR-STV system would mean there would be a significant UKIP presence in Parliament.

Assuming people would have voted the same way under a different electoral system, of course.

But let that pass. Assuming people had voted the same way under a proportional system, while there would have been a significant UKIP presence in Parliament after the 2015 election it would have been outweighed by the Lib Dem/SNP/Green presence. The Tories and UKIP together would not have had a majority, so a referendum would not have been a given.

solodeogloria

Calina wrote: »

In other words you cannot explain what the issues with the policy areas you named are.

The UK pooled sovereignty in the last 43 years. So clearly they felt it was in their interest and economically it appears to have been in their interest.

So what has changed?

Good morning!

No - rather I will clarify my position if you ask a loaded question. If you have misunderstood my objection then I will clarify it.

Let's look at the section of the previous post.

Calina wrote: »

You have said every area should be scaled back. Explain what you mean by that and why it would be a benefit to the member states. Particularly for trade and fishing. Germany is doing fine on trade. Maybe government policy plays a role again?

Presumably this is of importance for every member state and not just the UK.

I'm not referring to every member state. I'm referring to the UK and it's interests. For many other countries the trade off in control is worth it. I think this is true for Ireland even though I find it distasteful.

For those​ claiming that the EU doesn't take a lot of control from member states, you just have to see trade policy where countries cannot form their own trade deals, or fishing policy where you cannot control who enters your waters (by the by this is one of the reasons the Conservatives took seats in north east Scotland in the election), to immigration policy where you can't determine who can enter your borders.

You miss the point though. My objection is high level. It isn't so much individual policy of the European Union but the principle that this much control should be handed over to them.

As for the UK and 43 years, the level of control handed over has increased over that time. The world has also changed during that time. There are big economic growth regions outside of the EU and a majority of Britain's exports to to these countries. The freedom to be able to find a trading arrangement with the United States and China to expand trade there would be huge.

It's easy to put your fingers in your ears and to pretend that Britain doesn't have a strong hand in the negotiations or that there aren't huge opportunities with the new flexibility that Britain will have.

However, Brexit does need to be handled carefully and a new relationship with the EU is key in that. If that is achieved and if new deals are struck then Britain will be better off outside the EU.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

As I've said before, and you've ignored, people voted to leave for many reasons, some based on barefaced lies, some because they felt they were competing for lower-paid jobs, some as a protest against the establishment. There were multifarious reasons why people voted leave.

If you took the time to read my posts - you would have noticed that not only did I reply to it several pages ago but I also brought your attention to it at the weekend.

To the other poster - there's not much to reply to your post about the referendum. It certainly wasn't narrow (1 million votes difference isn't narrow) and there were some porkies on both sides. Overall I think both sides set out their stall quite well.

tl;dr - the people gave a result, time to stop moaning and get on with it.

Let's be fair shall we?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

For those​ claiming that the EU doesn't take a lot of control from member states, you just have to see trade policy where countries cannot form their own trade deals, or fishing policy where you cannot control who enters your waters (by the by this is one of the reasons the Conservatives took seats in north east Scotland in the election), to immigration policy where you can't determine who can enter your borders.

Fishing is a miniscule portion of the UK economy, especially compared to finance, science, technology, IT, etc... Is it really worth putting these in jeopardy so that a few fishermen can fish various species of fish to extinction? Will their contribution via taxes outweigh the loss of any companies that leave?

solodeogloria wrote: »

As for the UK and 43 years, the level of control handed over has increased over that time. The world has also changed during that time. There are big economic growth regions outside of the EU and a majority of Britain's exports to to these countries. The freedom to be able to find a trading arrangement with the United States and China to expand trade there would be huge.

And the EU never prevented tapping into these regions. Britain sends more to individual EU countries than to the likes of India, China, Indonesia, etc. It's only when you take EVERY other country on Earth outside the EU27 that trade with the EU becomes a slight minority.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's easy to put your fingers in your ears and to pretend that Britain doesn't have a strong hand in the negotiations or that there aren't huge opportunities with the new flexibility that Britain will have.

Because this is what the evidence indicates which is more convincing that your sneering comments and accusations of lying which are directed at anyone who disagrees with you.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Fishing is a miniscule portion of the UK economy, especially compared to finance, science, technology, IT, etc... Is it really worth putting these in jeopardy so that a few fishermen can fish various species of fish to extinction? Will their contribution via taxes outweigh the loss of any companies that leave?

My point is that the control that the EU has over member states is huge and it is very far reaching. You can read TFEU and see all of the areas that the EU has competence over it the areas of "shared" competence where the EU allows a member state to act only where it hasn't done so.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

And the EU never prevented tapping into these regions. Britain sends more to individual EU countries than to the likes of India, China, Indonesia, etc. It's only when you take EVERY other country on Earth outside the EU27 that trade with the EU becomes a slight minority.

The EU prevents signing free trade agreements. That's important. It restricts trade policy.

Your point is slightly disingenuous. Firstly the EU isn't a single country. Secondly the EU has a trade surplus with the UK. Thirdly the UK trades more with the rest of the world. It exports nearly half as much to the US and China than it does to the EU.

Therefore it is a good idea to find a way to open more trade opportunities with these countries and many others.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Because this is what the evidence indicates which is more convincing that your sneering comments and accusations of lying which are directed at anyone who disagrees with you.

I've presented huge opportunities to you, particularly in terms of trade. I think Britain is making the right move here.

To say that I've not argued for opportunities and explained that free trade deals could be hugely beneficial isn't being honest. It's also not honest to claim that I've not shown that the UK has a huge hand in negotiations when it comes to City access. I've quoted several people including the chief negotiator to say that the EU will need access to the City after Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

The world has also changed during that time. There are big economic growth regions outside of the EU and a majority of Britain's exports to to these countries. The freedom to be able to find a trading arrangement with the United States and China to expand trade there would be huge.

The thing is though that all of the member states are in the same position, yet the UK is the only major EU economy to consistently produce a trade deficit for the past 25 years... UK industry currently has preferential access to a major market and the same access to other markets as the rest of the EU, yet they fail to deliver, why is that????

It is all very well to blame the EU, but if the rest are delivering and you are not, then it does not ring true....

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is that the control that the EU has over member states is huge and it is very far reaching. You can read TFEU and see all of the areas that the EU has competence over it the areas of "shared" competence where the EU allows a member state to act only where it hasn't done so.

I find the term "Control" in this context slightly misleading. The EU has a single market which is supposed to work equally for each member state. This involves standards, regulations, etc.... If it were truly in control, member states would not be allowed to leave as the UK is currently doing.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU prevents signing free trade agreements. That's important. It restricts trade policy.

Your point is slightly disingenuous. Firstly the EU isn't a single country. Secondly the EU has a trade surplus with the UK. Thirdly the UK trades more with the rest of the world. It exports nearly half as much to the US and China than it does to the EU.

Therefore it is a good idea to find a way to open more trade opportunities with these countries and many others.

Of course it is a good idea but it would have been better to use the EU machinery to accomplish this rather than go it alone with a dearth of trade expertise which is currently posing a problem for the British along with the huge prize that is the single market which currently benefits from 53 trade deals including ones with Canada and Japan. One with the US would be in force but political pressure has scuppered that. Given that Liam Fox has made so little progress that he's had to play the victim card with the BBC, it seems that replicating the 53 trade deals the EU had along with trying to get one with the EU itself will take a long, long time indeed.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've presented huge opportunities to you, particularly in terms of trade. I think Britain is making the right move here.

To say that I've not argued for opportunities and explained that free trade deals could be hugely beneficial isn't being honest.

Why do you provide a link to these posts then, if they exist of course.

Calina

Solo needs to identify what those deals are likely to be. The UK is leaving the EU so that will be a material dis improvement in that direction. A FTA will not jave as much liberty and access as single matket membership.

They will be junior trading party with a massively protectionist US which wants lower food standards and to slice up the NHS. That is the two biggest ones. Also vulnerable to dumping for China.

What trade deal opportunities? I sometimes think the UK wants to turn the Commonwealth into a trading block with the UK in charge but I can't see the other Commonwealth countries buying that too much either.

Capt'n Midnight

UK has a strong position.
Brexit: UK 'overwhelmingly reliant' on EU vets and abattoir workers

The Lords EU Environment Committee said 90% of veterinary surgeons and 75% of abattoir workers were EU nationals and retaining them after Brexit was vital.

And that's before any extra conditions if the UK doesn't get a great deal, the best deal ever.

Rise in personal loans dangerous, Bank of England official says

Outstanding car loans, credit card balance transfers and personal loans have increased by 10% over the past year, the Bank's financial stability director Alex Brazier said.

In contrast household incomes have risen by just 1.5%, he said.

Scary news. People on lower incomes in the UK are getting squeezed.

Welcome to the new Britain.

Essex nursery 'closes because of universal free hours scheme'

Jackie says: "The Early Years sector is very good at trying to patch up and make do... but for as long as we all try to do that, the more the government doesn't have to do anything.

"It's great for parents, but my staff who are earning an average of £8.50 an hour are subsidising parents who are earning up to £200,000 a year.

"And when you think about that, it just brings it all home."

But there is money for a new train line in London and HS2. But Regional schemes have been shelved. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-40708531 Those two schemes will cost over £80 Bn , ten years EU membership, but of course the UK won't be entitled to any structural funds.
HS2 is for the rich. All across the EU the trend is for long distance journeys by the likes of Ryanair Cattle Class to be cheaper than rail. Rail is for people with money and or business laptops.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Last post for today. I was going to call it earlier but I got a free coffee and pastry from Pret on the way to work which cheered me up

Also post 1,000 let's see how much more I'll do

Jim2007 wrote: »

The thing is though that all of the member states are in the same position, yet the UK is the only major EU economy to consistently produce a trade deficit for the past 25 years... UK industry currently has preferential access to a major market and the same access to other markets as the rest of the EU, yet they fail to deliver, why is that????

It is all very well to blame the EU, but if the rest are delivering and you are not, then it does not ring true....

Firstly - I'd like to drop the tone and say I'm not blaming the EU. It's not their fault that it doesn't suit Britain to be a member or that they want to go in a different direction.

Secondly - it isn't true to say that the UK hasn't been delivering because it happens to trade a lot in services. A lot of manufacturers trade more with the rest of the world than with the EU anyway. This is why JCB and Dyson were pro-Brexit.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I find the term "Control" in this context slightly misleading. The EU has a single market which is supposed to work equally for each member state. This involves standards, regulations, etc.... If it were truly in control, member states would not be allowed to leave as the UK is currently doing.

If the European Union has primary authority in areas X, Y and Z it means that it has control over X, Y and Z. That's hardly misleading.

The UK wants this control. The conditions of single market membership are too much. That's a good reason to leave it.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course it is a good idea but it would have been better to use the EU machinery to accomplish this rather than go it alone with a dearth of trade expertise which is currently posing a problem for the British along with the huge prize that is the single market which currently benefits from 53 trade deals including ones with Canada and Japan. One with the US would be in force but political pressure has scuppered that. Given that Liam Fox has made so little progress that he's had to play the victim card with the BBC, it seems that replicating the 53 trade deals the EU had along with trying to get one with the EU itself will take a long, long time indeed.

I don't see what additional benefits the EU adds apart from scale. As a major world economy and as a market of 60 million the UK has a lot of clout on its own. Negotiations should be quicker because you don't have to consider the particular needs of 27 other countries when negotiating.

Also it's worth bearing in mind that there's only so much progress that Liam Fox can make given that the European Union forbids negotiations. I'm thankful that there are initial discussions happening with Washington and I'm also thankful for the number of countries that want an agreement with the UK. Hopefully initial conversations can continue but it isn't honest to say firstly that it is Liam Fox's fault that the EU prohibit comprehensive trade talks and that he has made little progress as a result, or secondly to claim that we know how much progress has been made.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why do you provide a link to these posts then, if they exist of course.

I mentioned that China and the US are markets of £100bn to the UK in my last post. I mentioned that there are opportunities to expand this with a free trade agreement.

That's an opportunity. Unless you're claiming that it isn't an opportunity?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Thomas__

Calina wrote: »

Solo needs to identify what those deals are likely to be. The UK is leaving the EU so that will be a material dis improvement in that direction. A FTA will not jave as much liberty and access as single matket membership.  

They will be junior trading party with a massively protectionist US which wants lower food standards and to slice up the NHS. That is the two biggest ones. Also vulnerable to dumping for China.

What trade deal opportunities? I sometimes think the UK wants to turn the Commonwealth into a trading block with the UK in charge but I can't see the other Commonwealth countries buying that too much either.

Me too, as I see it as well that this is the core of the whole idea and it doesn´t work. Maybe because in not less Commonwealth member states, the recollections (or memories) from former colonial times are still there. Even Australia which is one of the economical strong member states prefers the EU over the UK in trading deals.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Your point is slightly disingenuous. Firstly the EU isn't a single country. Secondly the EU has a trade surplus with the UK. Thirdly the UK trades more with the rest of the world. It exports nearly half as much to the US and China than it does to the EU.

It's irrelevant that the EU isn't a single country. If we're considering the effects of Brexit, trade with all EU and EFTA countries is affected by leaving the Single Market, and I don't see on what basis you would argue that the effect is any way changed by number of countries involved.

While it's true that the EU has a trade surplus with the UK, I don't see that that matters greatly. Both UK exports to the EU and UK imports from the EU are beneficial to the UK; otherwise the UK wouldn't engage in the transactions involved.

As for your third claim, it's flat-out false. UK exports to China in 2015 were £16.7 bn in 2015. To the US, £96.4 bn. To the EU, £230 bn. To the single market (EU + EFTA), £257 bn.

Almost exactly half of UK exports go to the single market. A further 7-9% or so happen under Free Trade Agreements between the EU and third countries - that would rise to 10-12% if the UK is still a member of the EU when the Canada FTA is applied.

The notion that the UK can improve its terms of trade by shredding the free trade arrangements that apply to 60% or more of its exports and starting again from scratch seems wildly improbable, and I have yet to read a coherent explanation of the claim that this could happen.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Some quick clarifications!

1) £100bn is "nearly half" of £230bn. That's not false and it isn't fair to say that is false.
2) your post makes an assumption that the UK isn't looking for a transition period. It is.
3) the number of countries involved is important because the UK has different exposures to different member states.
4) A trade surplus does matter because the EU makes a net gain from UK trade. That's obvious.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

What is false is that the UK "trades more with the rest of the world". As noted, 50% of the UK's exports are to the single market (and, for the record, rather more than 50% of its imports are from the single market). When you add in trade with the rest of the world conducted under EU-third country FTAs the signficance of EU membership, and therefore of Brexit, to the UK's trade is even greater.

I don't assume there will be no transition period; the transition period doesn't affect the figures. The fact that the UK may have an extra 2-4 years to come to terms with the effect of leaving the single market doesn't change the effect of leaving the single market.

The number of countries involved is not important. The UK's current arrangement for trading with the EU is a uniform arrangement which applies equally to the whole of the EU. That will also be true of any replacement arrangement that the UK may seek to negotiate, or succeed in negotiating. Given that, analysing the UK's EU trade as between France, Germany, Italy, etc is about as relevant as analysing its US trade as between New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, etc. The UK is never going to have a separate free trade agreement with Massachussetts, and it's never going to have a separate free trade agreeement with France.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

2) your post makes an assumption that the UK isn't looking for a transition period. It is.

How interesting.

How long a transition period are they looking for? How much of their current EU contribution will they continue to pay during this transition?

How long will the Government last after May and Fox give answers to these questions?

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Some quick clarifications!

1) £100bn is "nearly half" of £230bn. That's not false and it isn't fair to say that is false.
2) your post makes an assumption that the UK isn't looking for a transition period. It is.
3) the number of countries involved is important because the UK has different exposures to different member states.
4) A trade surplus does matter because the EU makes a net gain from UK trade. That's obvious.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

They will get a transition period if it suits the EU and as for as long as it suits the EU. Yet another in the long list of reasons why the UK will take what it gets.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the European Union has primary authority in areas X, Y and Z it means that it has control over X, Y and Z. That's hardly misleading.

The UK wants this control. The conditions of single market membership are too much. That's a good reason to leave it.

A small portion of the 52%, hardly the whole country of nearly 65 million.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't see what additional benefits the EU adds apart from scale. As a major world economy and as a market of 60 million the UK has a lot of clout on its own. Negotiations should be quicker because you don't have to consider the particular needs of 27 other countries when negotiating.

Are you serious? The richest trading bloc in the world of over half a billion people. If your point were true, there wouldn't be 53 trade deals that the UK will now have to renegotiate.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Also it's worth bearing in mind that there's only so much progress that Liam Fox can make given that the European Union forbids negotiations. I'm thankful that there are initial discussions happening with Washington and I'm also thankful for the number of countries that want an agreement with the UK. Hopefully initial conversations can continue but it isn't honest to say firstly that it is Liam Fox's fault that the EU prohibit comprehensive trade talks and that he has made little progress as a result, or secondly to claim that we know how much progress has been made.

As far as I am aware, that only applies to signing trade deals. They could be discussed verbally beforehand.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I mentioned that China and the US are markets of £100bn to the UK in my last post. I mentioned that there are opportunities to expand this with a free trade agreement.

That's an opportunity. Unless you're claiming that it isn't an opportunity? [/QUOTE]

Have you forgotten TTIP? I've no idea where that figure has come from by the way? How does it stack up to the full access to the single market the UK currently benefits hugely from? What will Liam Fox concede to reap these benefits? The NHS? Allowing chlorinated chicken?

ancapailldorcha

Looks like people see the single market as being more important than stopping free movement:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/889473189016985603

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

You miss the point though. My objection is high level. It isn't so much individual policy of the European Union but the principle that this much control should be handed over to them.

I remember hearing a politician once say that you could never eat a principle. No point having high-level principles if the result impoverishes those you represent.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's easy to put your fingers in your ears and to pretend that Britain doesn't have a strong hand in the negotiations or that there aren't huge opportunities with the new flexibility that Britain will have.

Britain has already had to climb down and seek a transition period, during which it will remain under EU control and the ECJ. We are heading for a version of Brexit Lite which will inevitably lead the next generation to ask why aren't we in there making the rules which we are required to follow in order to prosper?

First Up

According to reports, Davis has flagged the idea that the UK will allow imports of chlorine washed chicken from the US as part of the price of a trade deal.

We'll see what aspects of the UK's deal are better than the EU-US trade terms. Or will it just be more chickens coming home to roost?

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

Firstly - I'd like to drop the tone and say I'm not blaming the EU. It's not their fault that it doesn't suit Britain to be a member or that they want to go in a different direction.

This is a bit like the leaves on the track... it was the wrong kind of trade! The fact remains, given the same set of circumstances UK industry has failed to produce a single trade surplus!

solodeogloria wrote: »

Secondly - it isn't true to say that the UK hasn't been delivering because it happens to trade a lot in services. A lot of manufacturers trade more with the rest of the world than with the EU anyway. This is why JCB and Dyson were pro-Brexit.

But we are talking about trade deals and the ability or lack there of of UK companies. As for JCB and Dyson there are two questions, first given their position why have they failed to build a substantial market in Europe? The second question is given that both companies have substantial manufacturing facilities out side the UK/EU, if there are FTA agreements with the countries where they are located where do you think they will expand low cost countries or the UK?????

Water John

I really wonder if this particular Fox will himself eat the chlorinated chicken.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/25/brussels-attacks-liam-foxs-ignorant-remarks-chlorinated-chicken-eu-trade-deal-us

listermint

Sure Dyson hated the EU because he wanted to scrap energy rating labels on his cleaners and he lost.

Its nothing more than selfish thinking and a bid to get his own back for him feeling slighted.

I can't believe you could hold his opinion up as some validation. His case wasn't sensible in the first place. He wanted Dyson to be treated as special.

Nody

Water John wrote: »

I really wonder if this particular Fox will himself eat the chlorinated chicken.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/25/brussels-attacks-liam-foxs-ignorant-remarks-chlorinated-chicken-eu-trade-deal-us

Such good standards that their FDA got sued and won by an American producer who had salmonella infected chicken with the motivation "It's not an issue if people cook it properly" as reason to why FDA was not to ban them selling it to consumers. Sounds like proper standards UK would want to follow; no possible issues from this at all...

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

Such good standards that their FDA got sued and won by an American producer who had salmonella infected chicken with the motivation "It's not an issue if people cook it properly" as reason to why FDA was not to ban them selling it to consumers. Sounds like proper standards UK would want to follow; no possible issues from this at all...

John Gummer, then a Tory agriculture minister, fed his four year old daughter a hamburger on television to disprove the idea that humans could contract CJD.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Last post for today. I was going to call it earlier but I got a free coffee and pastry from Pret on the way to work which cheered me up

Enjoy it while it lasts.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/pret-a-manger-brexit-hr-director-andrea-wareham-brexit-eu-nationals-65-per-cent-cafe-employeeseu-a7620111.html

Pret a Manger HR director warns MPs over Brexit as 65% of the cafe chain's employees are EU nationals

Just one in 50 of the applicants for a job at the high street chain is British

Sam Russell

Nody wrote: »

Such good standards that their FDA got sued and won by an American producer who had salmonella infected chicken with the motivation "It's not an issue if people cook it properly" as reason to why FDA was not to ban them selling it to consumers. Sounds like proper standards UK would want to follow; no possible issues from this at all...

see post #663

That was Foster Foods that had an ongoing infection of Salmonella in their chickens for 15 months. They sued the FDA to overturn a ban and won on the grounds that properly cooked chicken kills the bacteria. They were the sixth largest producer of chicken in the US and the largest in Ca.

American food producers fight hard to have weak to no standards in food production hygiene so they can keep prices (to them) low.

Capt'n Midnight

Newsnight right now

US want the UK to concede over
Chlorinated chicken ( the EU stance is that abattoirs should be clean in the first place )
Hormone boosted beef (remember foot and mouth wiped out the reputation of UK beef)
Whisky - less than 3 years old ( guess what is the #1 UK food export ? )
GM corn restrictions

Rolls Royce subsidies. For wide bodied jets the alternatives are two US companies who get a lot of US military contracts - this is one of the UK's niche areas

Professor Moriarty

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Newsnight right now

US want the UK to concede over
Chlorinated chicken ( the EU stance is that abattoirs should be clean in the first place )
Hormone boosted beef (remember foot and mouth wiped out the reputation of UK beef)
Whisky - less than 3 years old ( guess what is the #1 UK food export ? )
GM corn restrictions

Rolls Royce subsidies. For wide bodied jets the alternatives are two US companies who get a lot of US military contracts - this is one of the UK's niche areas

What happened to the special relationship?

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What happened to the special relationship?

That is the special relationship.

US: Jump!

UK: How high, Sir?

Capt'n Midnight

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What happened to the special relationship?

That ended on the 15th of July 1946. (December 1942 if you date it by when the US first stopped reciprocating information on atomic bomb development)

John Maynard Keynes was sent by the United Kingdom to the United States and Canada to obtain more funds. British politicians expected that in view of the United Kingdom's contribution to the war effort, especially for the lives lost before the United States entered the fight in 1941, America would offer favorable terms. Instead of a grant or a gift, however, Keynes was offered a loan on favorable terms.
...

The loan was made subject to conditions, the most damaging of which was the convertibility of sterling
...
the rapid loss of dollar reserves also highlighted the weakness of sterling, which was duly devalued in 1949 from $4.02 to $2.80.

People will tell you it was a good deal based on the interest rate. But the devaluing of sterling increased it massively and the inflation that reduced the effective interest rate happened later. The loan was fully paid off in 2006.

Professor Moriarty

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

That ended on the 15th of July 1946. (December 1942 if you date it by when the US first stopped reciprocating information on atomic bomb development)


People will tell you it was a good deal based on the interest rate. But the devaluing of sterling increased it massively and the inflation that reduced the effective interest rate happened later. The loan was fully paid off in 2006.

That told me! You learn something new everyday.

oppenheimer1

Just from reading the debate btl in the UK papers on both sides of the divide one cannot help but feel that it had echos of the sentiment in Ireland in and around 2007. While here there was obviously no referendum to trigger the crisis the fallout is remarkably similar.

The general feeling you get is of dark economic clouds on the horizon, but like Bertie there is a hard line cohort unable to face reality and jumps on any half positive news as evidence of the."best had yet to come". Meanwhile, in the real world, sterling (effectively the "share price" of the economy) has weakened considerably and real incomes are falling.

Crunch time for the UK will be in October, if, as I suspect, the EU refuses to progress the talks to the future relationship. If I were a betting man, I'd bet on a run on sterling around then.

Of course, the other similarity is the schadenfreude from the Tory press to Ireland. This time it's reversed

solodeogloria

Good morning!

I'm sticking to one reply to the thread a day now. I think I serve a useful purpose in providing some balance to the thread, so I will keep posting for now, but in a more limited fashion.

Peregrinus wrote: »

What is false is that the UK "trades more with the rest of the world". As noted, 50% of the UK's exports are to the single market (and, for the record, rather more than 50% of its imports are from the single market). When you add in trade with the rest of the world conducted under EU-third country FTAs the signficance of EU membership, and therefore of Brexit, to the UK's trade is even greater.

This isn't false. My point is that the UK trades more with other countries than with the European Union. I meant this in terms of exports.

My point was specifically about what trade the UK does with the European Union.

According to Full Fact - 44% of the UK's exports in goods and services went to other EU countries. £240 billion out of £550bn in 2016.

The source I was using earlier was the Office of National Statistics for 2015. According to these figures, the UK exported £230bn to the European Union, £27.4bn to EFTA, and £259.9bn to the rest of the world. Even if I aggregate EFTA and the EU together, we get more exports to the rest of the world.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A small portion of the 52%, hardly the whole country of nearly 65 million.

I'm one of the 48% and I'm right behind the Government on the major priorities of Brexit.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Are you serious? The richest trading bloc in the world of over half a billion people. If your point were true, there wouldn't be 53 trade deals that the UK will now have to renegotiate.

I am serious when I say that a G7 country with a population of 65 million people will have negotiating clout of it's own yes. Canada seems to be able to do it without handing it's hat to other countries and by sticking to its own guns on things such as arbitration. There is no reason why Britain will not be able to do so.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As far as I am aware, that only applies to signing trade deals. They could be discussed verbally beforehand.

No. Trade negotiations are prohibited by the EU. There's some obscure distinction between discussion and negotiation. The EU doesn't seem to give a lot of detail on that line, but they do prohibit negotiations.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's an opportunity. Unless you're claiming that it isn't an opportunity?

You also asked about where I got the China and the US figures from. Again, the figures from the Office of National Statistics on UK exports in 2015. You can drill down into the rest of the world chart to see how much other countries contribute.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Have you forgotten TTIP? I've no idea where that figure has come from by the way? How does it stack up to the full access to the single market the UK currently benefits hugely from? What will Liam Fox concede to reap these benefits? The NHS? Allowing chlorinated chicken?

I haven't forgotten TTIP. It was a deal that the EU didn't want to pursue. It isn't and it wasn't some kind of scary bogeyman though.

A few points:
1) The UK is clear that it wants a good deal with the EU. So when we talk of a deal with the US we aren't talking about an either or scenario. The priority of the government is to maintain strong links with the EU while pursuing new trade agreements elsewhere. It isn't EU vs everything or everyone else. It's both.

2) Single market membership is being rejected because the terms are too restrictive. The UK wants the freedom to be able to forge new trade deals with countries like America. The EU prohibits this.

3) The US is one of the UK's biggest trading partners. In fact it is the biggest single country with which the UK trades with about £96bn in trade every year. Bear in mind that the EU as a whole is £230bn. A more favourable trading relationship with the US could allow more British goods to reach the US and therefore bring more prosperity to Britain.

4) Most of Britain's exports as I've demonstrated - are with countries outside of the European Union, that percentage has also grown year on year. As the world has changed, it also makes sense that Britain should change to capitalise on those opportunities.

5) What Liam Fox will or won't concede to finalise US trade talks is a matter for discussion. However - I think that the chlorinated chicken thing is another bogeyman that is being erected. I think instead of being overly protectionist that consumers should be able to decide for themselves. If it means a huge expansion in British exports to the US, I'm all for being less protectionist in that regard. The stuff about the NHS is also bogeyman stuff. The NHS already uses private contracts in lots of areas. As long as the NHS is free at the point of delivery I see no harm in allowing American firms to compete for already existing contracts in the health service.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First Up

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

US want the UK to concede over Chlorinated chicken ( the EU stance is that abattoirs should be clean in the first place ) Hormone boosted beef (remember foot and mouth wiped out the reputation of UK beef)

No more chicken curries for me in the UK but more importantly, if the UK lowers food standards it guarantees border inspections.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm one of the 48% and I'm right behind the Government on the major priorities of Brexit.

And? Every time you say that people voted for sovereignty or immigration control or whatever, you forget that you're describing minorities. More people voted to remain than any individual segment of the leave vote.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I am serious when I say that a G7 country with a population of 65 million people will have negotiating clout of it's own yes. Canada seems to be able to do it without handing it's hat to other countries and by sticking to its own guns on things such as arbitration. There is no reason why Britain will not be able to do so.

You're back to the strawmen. Nobody said that there would be no clout whatsoever. CETA took 7 years to negotiate and does not include services.

solodeogloria wrote: »

No. Trade negotiations are prohibited by the EU. There's some obscure distinction between discussion and negotiation. The EU doesn't seem to give a lot of detail on that line, but they do prohibit negotiations.

So why has Liam Fox been dispatched to various countries then?

solodeogloria wrote: »

You also asked about where I got the China and the US figures from. Again, the figures from the Office of National Statistics on UK exports in 2015. You can drill down into the rest of the world chart to see how much other countries contribute.

And trade with the EU (and EFTA) is worth more than the rest of the world combined.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I haven't forgotten TTIP. It was a deal that the EU didn't want to pursue. It isn't and it wasn't some kind of scary bogeyman though.

The EU was pressured into it by protests. Odd that it seems to be more responsive than Westminster.

solodeogloria wrote: »

A few points:
1) The UK is clear that it wants a good deal with the EU. So when we talk of a deal with the US we aren't talking about an either or scenario. The priority of the government is to maintain strong links with the EU while pursuing new trade agreements elsewhere. It isn't EU vs everything or everyone else. It's both.

Except that we are. As I posted before, UK public opinion is favouring single market membership now which entails both the customs union and the ECJ. Without the customs union, many companies will leave as their "Just-in-time" manufacturing model is dependent on the customs union.

solodeogloria wrote: »

2) Single market membership is being rejected because the terms are too restrictive. The UK wants the freedom to be able to forge new trade deals with countries like America. The EU prohibits this.

It isn't. See above.

solodeogloria wrote: »

3) The US is one of the UK's biggest trading partners. In fact it is the biggest single country with which the UK trades with about £96bn in trade every year. Bear in mind that the EU as a whole is £230bn. A more favourable trading relationship with the US could allow more British goods to reach the US and therefore bring more prosperity to Britain.

IS. Presently, as in not prevented by EU membership. What would the UK have to give up to sign such a deal. The NHS? Food standards?

solodeogloria wrote: »

4) Most of Britain's exports as I've demonstrated - are with countries outside of the European Union, that percentage has also grown year on year. As the world has changed, it also makes sense that Britain should change to capitalise on those opportunities.

The EU counts for a disproportionally high amount of that trade. You have to take literally every other country on Earth to make it a minority.

solodeogloria wrote: »

5) What Liam Fox will or won't concede to finalise US trade talks is a matter for discussion. However - I think that the chlorinated chicken thing is another bogeyman that is being erected. I think instead of being overly protectionist that consumers should be able to decide for themselves. If it means a huge expansion in British exports to the US, I'm all for being less protectionist in that regard. The stuff about the NHS is also bogeyman stuff. The NHS already uses private contracts in lots of areas. As long as the NHS is free at the point of delivery I see no harm in allowing American firms to compete for already existing contracts in the health service.

Sorry but that's a crock when you see the amount of working people stuck in poverty because of high rents and low wages. My point isn't US companies running NHS services, it's that they'll want much great access to win contracts for those service. We simply don't know because this deal will be conducted in secret with no referendum from the public.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

. . . What Liam Fox will or won't concede to finalise US trade talks is a matter for discussion. However - I think that the chlorinated chicken thing is another bogeyman that is being erected. I think instead of being overly protectionist that consumers should be able to decide for themselves. If it means a huge expansion in British exports to the US, I'm all for being less protectionist in that regard. The stuff about the NHS is also bogeyman stuff. The NHS already uses private contracts in lots of areas. As long as the NHS is free at the point of delivery I see no harm in allowing American firms to compete for already existing contracts in the health service.

First Up wrote: »

No more chicken curries for me in the UK but more importantly, if the UK lowers food standards it guarantees border inspections.

Just to be clear; the US isn't demanding that the UK start chlorine-washing its own chickens; just that it not exclude imports of chlorine-washed chicken.

Which means, solo, this isn't about a "huge expansion" of UK imports to to the US; it's about an expansion of US exports of chicken to the UK. Almost certainly the US will be pressing the UK not to require that chlorine-washed chicken be labelled as such, which means that UK consumers won't, in practice, find it easy to choose between chlorine-washed and unchlorinated chicken. But the downside is not just to UK consumers; it's also to UK chicken producers, who will face competition from cheap American imported chicken meat, and who may not be able to compete on quality if the consumer can't distinguish between chlorine-treated and chlorine-untreated meat.

But it also means, FirstUp, that there won't necessarily have to be border inspections of meat imported from the UK to the EU. That only arises if UK law permits UK-produced chicken meat to be chlorine-washed.

The other aspect to this - and this has big traction in the UK - is animal welfare. The point about chlorine-washing is that it kills E. coli, salmonella and suchlike. Which means it's not a problem for producers if the birds are infected with these disease while alive; the meat can be cleaned after slaughter. Which make it possible - and economically advantageous - to keep the birds in conditions favourable to the spread of these diseases. Basically, you are setting up economic incentives for producers to keep sheds crammed with sick chickens living in their own filth. If you have spacious, clean production sheds, you don't need to chlorine-wash the meat.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

But it also means, FirstUp, that there won't necessarily have to be border inspections of meat imported from the UK to the EU. That only arises if UK law permits UK-produced chicken meat to be chlorine-washed.

Or if the UK imports chlorine washed chicken and re-exports it.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Or if the UK imports chlorine washed chicken and re-exports it.

What you'd need is a certification-system whereby UK-produced meat could be identified, and wouldn't need inspection. Onerous, but not so onerous as having to have the meat inspected. So if the US does get its way on this in the UK/US trade deal, and the UK holds the line on not allowing chlorine-washing in UK chicken production, expect the UK to introduce a certification system for UK chicken producers.

Note, though, that the chicken-meat industry's stand is very strongly (a) we don't want chlorine-washed chicken to be allowed into the UK, but (b) if it is allowed in, we want to be allowed to do it to. Yes, it would make it impossible to export chicken meat to the EU, but the truth is that they don't export a lot of chicken meat to the EU (or anywhere else); the UK is a substantial net importer of poulty meat and poultry meat products.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

Note, though, that the chicken-meat industry's stand is very strongly (a) we don't want chlorine-washed chicken to be allowed into the UK, but (b) if it is allowed in, we want to be allowed to do it to. Yes, it would make it impossible to export chicken meat to the EU, but the truth is that they don't export a lot of chicken meat to the EU (or anywhere else); the UK is a substantial net importer of poulty meat and poultry meat products.

We get chicken from China via UK importers. Not so much in retail but plenty in the catering trade.

swampgas

A rather unpopular opinion piece (judging by the comments) on some of the psychological factors affecting Brexit.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/26/dunkirk-brexit-retreat-europe-britain-eec

I thought this comment was accurate though, and (IMO) it reflects the way mainland Europe sees the history of WW2 through a very different prism to the UK. The EU project is far more than a trading area. It was from its inception a political project, something that Brexit supporters seem to forget over and over again.

Everyone who tries to link Dunkirk and Brexit misses the really vital point. Defeat by the Nazis meant, for us, a heroic defeat followed by a successful, and equally heroic, defence of our country. It wasn't that bad, in fact it was good enough to make a film out of (or two).

For the rest of Europe defeat by Hitler meant occupation, real national humiliation, ethnic cleansing and collaboration in genocide. It was so bad it left everyone, Left or Right, saying 'Never again'. The French won't make a heroic film about 1940, there is no Greek version of Allo Allo, and no Polish Dad's Army. For them the Second World War is no triumphant tale, and certainly no joke.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it also means, FirstUp, that there won't necessarily have to be border inspections of meat imported from the UK to the EU. That only arises if UK law permits UK-produced chicken meat to be chlorine-washed.

Or if chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-stuffed beef from the US makes it into British produced foods, which is inevitable if it is allowed in at all. Think of where frozen mince ended up in the food chain back when burgers were a scare story in, what 2013 was it?

And you can guarantee that every meat producer in the EU will call for bans and inspections of all UK food products if US meat is allowed in, simply out of protectionism.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

(b) if it is allowed in, we want to be allowed to do it to.

Yep - a race to the bottom as standards are loosened.

Roughly the same as what will happen to workers rights and basic human rights once May gets out from under the European courts. In the name of "competitiveness" and "security", of course.

swampgas

More division in the cabinet - Gove claims accepting chlorinated chicken would be a deal breaker, contradicting Fox:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/26/uk-us-trade-deal-chlorinated-chicken-michael-gove-liam-fox

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it also means, FirstUp, that there won't necessarily have to be border inspections of meat imported from the UK to the EU. That only arises if UK law permits UK-produced chicken meat to be chlorine-washed.

But what's to stop a Northern Irish food firm importing chlorine washed chicken, making curries out of it and exporting those south of the border?

Customs checks are definitely coming IMO, and not just because of potential lower food standards.

I just hope our dear government has a contingency plan to rapidly expand capacity at our southern ports. We may need urgent assistance from our EU partners also to make sure we can still ship product directly to France as I believe there will be chaos at British ports and again at EU ports receiving ferries from the UK. The big problem will be in sourcing ferries I suspect.

Stupid Brexit.

Professor Moriarty

murphaph wrote: »

But what's to stop a Northern Irish food firm importing chlorine washed chicken, making curries out of it and exporting those south of the border?

Customs checks are definitely coming IMO, and not just because of potential lower food standards.

I just hope our dear government has a contingency plan to rapidly expand capacity at our southern ports. We may need urgent assistance from our EU partners also to make sure we can still ship product directly to France as I believe there will be chaos at British ports and again at EU ports receiving ferries from the UK. The big problem will be in sourcing ferries I suspect.

Stupid Brexit.

Pascal Lamy (former head of WTO) consistently emphasises that Britain's problem will be regulations not tariffs.