Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

paul71

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Of course they can refuse. They can also deal with common wealth countries and or anyone else they feel like.
You would swear non EU countries were all 3rd world slums or something

It terms of food production they all are. The EU has the highest food production standards in the world BY FAR. The Uk have 3 choices, 1. Buy the best standard food on the planet. 2. Buy dangerous muck 3. Go hungry.

1. Is the option they will take
2. They go the way of the US and like the US face decreasing life expectancy and increasing obesity.
3. Return to rationing.

Peregrinus

They'll have no trouble buying adequate supplies of safe food on the world market. There'll be a degree of dislocation while they set up new supply chains, but we live in a very globalised world. It won't be difficult to do.

The problem is that if they open their markets to, e.g., Brazilian beef, domestic producers will be undercut. A UK beef farmer can't compete with a Brazilian rancher on price.

And this doesn't just affect beef; it scales up right across the food market, and other markets.

Basically, as we all remember, most economic analysis of Brexit projected that it would be economically harmful to the UK - and, the harder the Brexit, the greater the harm. The government's own projections confirm this, as do projections from universities, think tanks, the financial services industry, etc.

The small set of projections that tell a different story model a Brexit in which the UK becomes Singapore-on-Thames - does not seek to make trade deals, unilaterally abolishes all tariffs and most restrictive regulations and opens its domestic markets to the world.

This fixes the food problem because Britons will be able to buy food at world market prices without limit.

An unfortunate side-effect is that it totally destroys British agriculture.

And the same goes for manufactured goods - Britons will be able to buy cheap manufactured goods from anywhere in the world, but British manufacturing industry will be gutted.

The proponents of this model point out that Britain is already predominantly a services economy, and they should play to their strengths and stop worrying about industry or agriculture. This tends towards a Britain in which all workers are, basically, either merchant bankers or call centre operatives, but that's OK if you expect or hope to be one of the merchant bankers.

fash

CelticRambler wrote: »

If losing those two parts of the Kingdom is not enough to persuade the average English voter to demand a genuinely representative House of Commons (I'm not convinced it would be), then why wouldn't the Welsh opt out of the Union aswell?

The main problem is that a very large chunk of Wales has been colonized by English (often commuters) - hence why Wales voted to Brexit also.. it will therefore be much more difficult for them to gain independence.

fash

Just a thought: one of the (malicious) benefits of the EU continuing talks with the UK for as long as possible is the delay of some no deal preparation by the general public. As there is substantially more no deal preparation to be done on the UK side, by hindering its progress (and hence increasing post no deal chaos), presumably it helps create negotiating pressure by the EU on the UK.

Tell me how

fash wrote: »

Just a thought: one of the (malicious) benefits of the EU continuing talks with the UK for as long as possible is the delay of some no deal preparation by the general public. As there is substantially more no deal preparation to be done on the UK side, by hindering its progress (and hence increasing post no deal chaos), presumably it helps create negotiating pressure by the EU on the UK.

Everyone has been told with years at this point to prepare for a No Deal.

That aside, the suggestion that the EU are deliberately procrastinating so as to inhibit preparation in the UK has no basis in reality.

Peregrinus

fash wrote: »

. . . EU continuing talks with the UK for as long as possible . . . presumably it helps create negotiating pressure by the EU on the UK.

Well, yes, by definition, because if negotiations stop the UK is, by definition, under no negotiating pressure at all.

I really don't think that the difference between negotiations ending in September or negotiations continuing into October is going to make much difference to anyone's no-deal preparations. Even a half-wit can see that, even if negotiations continue until 31 December and beyond, no-deal is very much on the cards. And even a half-wit can see that, if you haven't started your no-deal preparations by now, it's probably too late to do much that will stop you having a very torrid time if there is no deal in place on 1 January. The kind of people who haven't noticed either of these things are not the kind of people to whom the UK government pays any attention at all.

fash

Tell me how wrote: »

Everyone has been told with years at this point to prepare for a No Deal.

That aside, the suggestion that the EU are deliberately procrastinating so as to inhibit preparation in the UK has no basis in reality.

What I am suggesting doesn't need to be "deliberate" per se - it is merely a minor additional benefit to the stronger negotiating partner of the ticking clock.

paul71

Peregrinus wrote: »

They'll have no trouble buying adequate supplies of safe food on the world market. There'll be a degree of dislocation while they set up new supply chains, but we live in a very globalised world. It won't be difficult to do.

The problem is that if they open their markets to, e.g., Brazilian beef, domestic producers will be undercut. A UK beef farmer can't compete with a Brazilian rancher on price.

And this doesn't just affect beef; it scales up right across the food market, and other markets.

Basically, as we all remember, most economic analysis of Brexit projected that it would be economically harmful to the UK - and, the harder the Brexit, the greater the harm. The government's own projections confirm this, as do projections from universities, think tanks, the financial services industry, etc.

The small set of projections that tell a different story model a Brexit in which the UK becomes Singapore-on-Thames - does not seek to make trade deals, unilaterally abolishes all tariffs and most restrictive regulations and opens its domestic markets to the world.

This fixes the food problem because Britons will be able to buy food at world market prices without limit.

An unfortunate side-effect is that it totally destroys British agriculture.

And the same goes for manufactured goods - Britons will be able to buy cheap manufactured goods from anywhere in the world, but British manufacturing industry will be gutted.

The proponents of this model point out that Britain is already predominantly a services economy, and they should play to their strengths and stop worrying about industry or agriculture. This tends towards a Britain in which all workers are, basically, either merchant bankers or call centre operatives, but that's OK if you expect or hope to be one of the merchant bankers.

I normally agree with almost everything you say but the world market is not safe food. Food in the US is of a signifcantly poorer standard than that in the EU. That is borne out by a DECREASING life expectancy there, due to fatty foods, higher sugar contents, poorer hygene standards in production, poorer regulation, carcinogenics in ingredients banned in the EU and the use of pesticides banned in the EU.

Peregrinus

paul71 wrote: »

I normally agree with almost everything you say but the world market is not safe food. Food in the US is of a signifcantly poorer standard than that in the EU. That is borne out by a DECREASING life expectancy there, due to fatty foods, higher sugar contents, poorer hygene standards in production, poorer regulation, carcinogenics in ingredients banned in the EU and the use of pesticides banned in the EU.

Oh, sure. But you can have food standards which are not as high as in the EU, but nevertheless still high enough to be safe. You can buy food produced to EU standards, though not in the EU. Etc, etc. I'm not saying that all food sold in world markets is as safe as you might want; just that there is lots of safe food sold in world markets, and there's nothing to stop the UK buying it.

As for the nutritional problems you mention, they are real but not all of them are down to food production standards. If you have a taste for fatty foods and foods with higher sugar contents, you can gratify that taste as much as you want within the EU, eating EU-standard food.

As for declining life expectancy in the US, this is also a real thing; it started three years ago. But the relationship between this and food standards is, um, weak. After all, the US has the same food standards it has had all along, so why would they only be affecting life expectancy now?

The downturn in US life expectancy is not due to higher mortality among the elderly, but rather to higher mortality in middle life - ages 25-64. (Meaning, if you make it to 65, your life expectancy is as good as it ever was.) And this middle life mortality is attributable to increases in deaths linked to:

- alcohol abuse
- drug abuse
- obesity
- organ-system diseases (e.g. diabetes, hypertension, heart, stroke)
- suicide

Some of these may be linked to food standards; some clearly are not. Nearly all are linked to stress, and the short and oversimplified explanation is that life for working-age Americans has become sh!ttier to such a degree as to signficantly adversely affect their health. So I think we're looking at social determinants of health, here, rather than food production standards.

Could the same happen in Brexit Britain? Well, it could, but that's highly speculative. And, if it were to, it's unlikely that food quality would be the predominant reason.

The UK is already heading in that direction in that life expectancy, which improved steadily each year until 2011. Since then the rate of improvement has declined markedly, although it hasn't yet reversed, as in the US. Unlike in the US, the downturn is not the result of poorer experience in the 25-64 age group, but in the over-50s, and at all ages for socio-economically deprived groups.

The usual account of this is "the consequences of austerity-driven constraints on health, social care and other public spending and their impact on services". If most of the economic models of the effects of Brexit are borne out, then public finances will be more strained and there will be more pressure on health, etc, services, so that would tend to exacerbate the problem. However a political choice could be made to maintain or even increase health and social care spending, and to finance this by cuts in other areas, by higher taxes or by borrowing.

listermint

Whilst of topic. There's an argument to say the ever growing disparity between wealth and poor in the US has resulted in inability to purchase better quality food and thus reliance on sub par foods is increasing.

Peregrinus

listermint wrote: »

Whilst of topic. There's an argument to say the ever growing disparity between wealth and poor in the US has resulted in inability to purchase better quality food and thus reliance on sub par foods is increasing.

it may be so, but I don't think that's a food standards issue. I don't think people are buying food that's botulism-riddled or infected with salmonella or whatever because that food is cheaper; rather they are buying food that is packed with salt and sugar and produces satiety but has poor nutritional value. And you can do that in Europe too, and people do, and they would likely do more of it if economic inequality increased.

murphaph

It is known that US consumers suffer from food borne illnesses like Salmonella with far greater frequency than over here.

It's safe, to a degree and compared to developing world countries it's very safe but it's not as safe as our food.

Given the choice I would prefer to eat food made in the EU.

Patser

I see the Trump administration is also saying leave the border alone. Raabs trip has been brilliant in uniting the US against messing with the GFA. I wonder will Iain Duncan Smith be as quick to tell Trump to sort out riots in US as he was Biden

https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1306810206328967170

54and56

Patser wrote: »

I see the Trump administration is also saying leave the border alone. Raabs trip has been brilliant in uniting the US against messing with the GFA. I wonder will Iain Duncan Smith be as quick to tell Trump to sort out riots in US as he was Biden

https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1306810206328967170

In a potentially tight US Presidential election there's no way Trump or his proxies will do or say anything to alienate the 40m Irish American vote.

Post election if Trump wins all bets are off, it'll be all about the commercial numbers then. If Trump can use the leverage a no deal Brexit will give him to squeeze a good deal for the US out of the UK he'll go for it and any potential damage to the GFA will be dismissed. That'll put serious pressure on the Dems in the HoR. Approve the trade deal and create Billions of $ for the US economy plus create thousands of US jobs blah blah blah or vote it down to protect the GFA.

Trump would love to put the Dems in that position.

Enzokk

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

No they don't. South American countries have to produce to European standards to be part of the mercoursur deal. UK can set it's own standards and apply them to getting a deal of their own.

No, South American producers that want to sell their products into the EU have to produce it to EU standards. A rancher could potentially have 2 herds on his farm, one as he used to do it and the other that is to be sold in the EU.

ExMachina1000

Enzokk wrote: »

No, South American producers that want to sell their products into the EU have to produce it to EU standards. A rancher could potentially have 2 herds on his farm, one as he used to do it and the other that is to be sold in the EU.

How is that any different to what I said?

5GMadeMeDoIt

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

How is that any different to what I said?

'No they don't. South American countries have to produce to European standards to be part of the mercoursur deal. UK can set it's own standards and apply them to getting a deal of their own.'

Your statement is ambiguous. It could be easily taken that you are suggesting that any country that wants to be part of the Mercousur deal has to produce all its beef to EU standard.

VinLieger

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

How is that any different to what I said?

Because you are now asking the rancher to create a third heard for UK consumptiopn.....

Peregrinus

It's unlikely that the UK market for beef is large enough to warrant many producers going to the trouble and expense of tooling up to comply with a unique set of standards for UK customers - and, even more expensive, to have their compliance assessed and certified.

But it doesn't matter. Producers already geared up to produce beef certified to EU standards could also offer that beef to the UK, and the UK could buy it. The UK would have to make a trade deal with the country concerned so that the beef could be imported tariff-free and, obviously, because the UK holds itself free to flout treaties any time it no longer feels like complying with them, making trade deals may now be a bit of a challenge. But if the trade deal is sufficiently one-sided, such that the other country gives the UK few or no concessions and thefore will lose nothing if the deal collapses, the risk of UK repudiation may not bother the other country that much.

So, yeah, if the UK wants EU-standard beef, but not from the EU, they can get it. Anyone can.

ExMachina1000

5GMadeMeDoIt wrote: »

'No they don't. South American countries have to produce to European standards to be part of the mercoursur deal. UK can set it's own standards and apply them to getting a deal of their own.'

Your statement is ambiguous. It could be easily taken that you are suggesting that any country that wants to be part of the Mercousur deal has to produce all its beef to EU standard.

Well let me clarify it for you. Any country right down to the individual farmers must produce the beef destined for the EU market to EU standards.

Furthermore if the UK wanted a beef deal with any country they would also set out standards that the beef must be produced to.

I think you know what I meant but argument for the sake of it

Retr0gamer

So it seems that the Trump administration is warning against a hard border in Ireland. Dominic Raab will be sent packing back to the UK with his tail between his legs.

Sam Russell

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Well let me clarify it for you. Any country right down to the individual farmers must produce the beef destined for the EU market to EU standards.

Furthermore if the UK wanted a beef deal with any country they would also set out standards that the beef must be produced to.

I think you know what I meant but argument for the sake of it

Well, that is correct.

If the UK set standards, they need to be able to enforce them. The EU have an inspection regime that is expensive to administer because they need vets on the ground to do that inspection.

The UK do not have such an inspection regime in place currently, and it is very expensive to set one up and it takes a long time to get it working. So we can discount that as a solution for the next few years - so it is basic standards. Anyway, they have not set any standards yet.

Foot and mouth is endemic in parts of South America - they need to be careful as the know what can happen.

Hmmm, it looks a bit trickier than 'the simplest deal'.

Enzokk

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

How is that any different to what I said?

It may not have been what you meant, but your post reads like South American countries will now change their standards across the board to EU standards.

It was just your use of country instead of producer.

Winters

Retr0gamer wrote: »

So it seems that the Trump administration is warning against a hard border in Ireland. Dominic Raab will be sent packing back to the UK with his tail between his legs.

I think the words 'by accident' are quite telling in that quote from Mick Mulvaney. To me it shows his understanding that Brexit with no FTA causes a border and that the responsibility to avoid a land border lies with the UK.

Since their Internal Markets Bill the UK have still not explained where the border will go in the case of no FTA.

Rock and a very hard place.

ExMachina1000

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, that is correct.

If the UK set standards, they need to be able to enforce them. The EU have an inspection regime that is expensive to administer because they need vets on the ground to do that inspection.

The UK do not have such an inspection regime in place currently, and it is very expensive to set one up and it takes a long time to get it working. So we can discount that as a solution for the next few years - so it is basic standards. Anyway, they have not set any standards yet.

Foot and mouth is endemic in parts of South America - they need to be careful as the know what can happen.

Hmmm, it looks a bit trickier than 'the simplest deal'.

Yes I agree. Definitely not an overnight solution. The logistics of getting top quality beef from Irish farmers was obviously much easier.
They (uk government ) have made their decision- well they haven't but they are thinking about it

fash

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Remind us again who set the clock ticking and why. And who rulled out extensions and ignored constant reminders that time is short? Hint it wasn't the EU.

Of course. However perhaps what I'm really saying is that if I were in the position if the EU and it had come to the point that no deal was certain or almost certain, frankly, I would keep negotiating.
Aside from potentially getting more intel on the other's position, for anyone dependent on the other side who still needs to prepare in any respects for no deal, you are giving them less time to prepare and hence increasing the shock and pain of no deal as a huge change is implemented in a short time. As the UK has to make more changes then the EU, that pain is felt disproportionately.
Maybe that's just mean not being a nice person though.

Sam Russell

fash wrote: »

Of course. However perhaps what I'm really saying is that if I were in the position if the EU and it had come to the point that no deal was certain or almost certain, frankly, I would keep negotiating.
Aside from potentially getting more intel on the other's position, for anyone dependent on the other side who still needs to prepare in any respects for no deal, you are giving them less time to prepare and hence increasing the shock and pain of no deal as a huge change is implemented in a short time. As the UK has to make more changes then the EU, that pain is felt disproportionately.
Maybe that's just mean not being a nice person though.

I think you are being generous.

If the UK intend to go for 'No Deal', then they would be preparing like mad for such an occurrence, but they do not appear to be doing much about it. So one could assume they are not going 'No Deal'.

If the EU were expecting a last minute climb down by the UK, or if they did not, then the EU would be prepared to make significant concessions, and so would not be prepared for 'No Deal'. However, the EU *are* preparing for 'No Deal'.

So, I think you can assume from this that only one side is preparing to climb down, or are, alternatively, incompetent.

I wonder which side it is that is preparing to climb down, or will be shown to be incompetent.

Leroy42

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think you are being generous.

If the UK intend to go for 'No Deal', then they would be preparing like mad for such an occurrence, but they do not appear to be doing much about it. So one could assume they are not going 'No Deal'.

If the EU were expecting a last minute climb down by the UK, or if they did not, then the EU would be prepared to make significant concessions, and so would not be prepared for 'No Deal'. However, the EU *are* preparing for 'No Deal'.

So, I think you can assume from this that only one side is preparing to climb down, or are, alternatively, incompetent.

I wonder which side it is that is preparing to climb down, or will be shown to be incompetent.

The Uk government have consistently shown themselves to be incompetent. I wouldn't read not being prepared for No Deal as any indication that they don't intend to go with No Deal.

I would put it more down to them simply not understanding what No deal actually entails and continuing to believe that No Deal is no change at all.

Hurrache

Patser wrote: »

Raabs trip has been brilliant in uniting the US against messing with the GFA. I wonder will Iain Duncan Smith be as quick to tell Trump to sort out riots in US as he was Biden

Scott Benton (who?), takes the cliched hold my beer method. What an earth is going through these guys heads, it's fanatical.


https://twitter.com/ScottBentonMP/status/1306627419311427584

He's retweeting that god awful Iain Martin, who's tweet was subsequently systematically destroyed by anyone with an ounce of knowledge.

https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1306657465124237316

And retweets this sort of crap
https://twitter.com/NJ_Timothy/status/1305993474366410753

Peregrinus

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

The EU are still waiting on documentation from UK outlining what standards they will have It has not materialised...

Well, there is a theory that it will materialise next month, the EU will say "grand, so", Boris will claim a famous victory in having stood up to the bullying jackbooted EU and got them to collapse in a heap and withdraw their threatened blockade, and Prime Minister's question time will be largely taken up with Tory backbenchers asking variations on "would my right honourable friend not agree that he is unquestionably the greatest Briton of his generation - indeed, of any generation?", to which Johnson will blushingly assent.

Meanwhile nobody will notice a few more hundred million of public money being trucked to private contractors to operate a track and trace system that does everything a track and trace system should (except for two things).