Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Herzlos

wunferall wrote: »

You say you want honest debate? Okay I will take you at your word.


Don't you understand how these things work? What makes you think it's about power - you're implying that one part in effect bullies the other and that is not how deals are arranged.

The reality is that both parties have red-line areas and areas open to negotiation. Therefore both sides will make the concessions they feel necessary to obtain what is wanted. Neither side wins and neither side loses, both should get what they want - or there is no deal. In which case nobody has lost anything since business continues as before, in the case of the USA under WTO rules.


At least you agree now that the UK won't be forced into chlorine-washed chicken. Hallelujah. Market forces are determined by consumers. So unless consumers are willing to accept such changes it's not going to happen, whether it's in pre-prepared food or elsewhere. If consumers aren't happy with labels not detailing where food comes from they have a choice of whether or not to buy it, just as they do now.

Aldi & Lidl are examples of this, with many of their products not having a country of origin detailed. It hasn't stopped their march upwards in terms of sales to the detriment of the "big four" has it?
(I refer to general produce BTW as opposed to fresh meat, which in the UK must by law have a country of origin. EU law does not make such country of origin labelling compulsory; see Directive 2000/13/EC. That means that often EU foods don't say where they are from.)


Now it looks like you're quibbling with more "if"'s.

Foodstuffs already enter the EU from countries globally. Nowadays things are a little more advanced, with such goods having their contents declared (and so being approved) before movement. That's how the eggs and horsemeat scandals went on for so long before action was taken and very clearly shows it as in internal problem far more than an extra-EU problem.

The simple answer of course is that manufacturers undertake to only supply approved products.


Regarding the USA specifically (and despite the media carp) my personal suspicion is that the USA might well look to the UK as an ally against what it sees as increasing unfairness from China, the EU and Russia. Should Russia and China improve their relationship (as has been suggested) this USA stance will soon be seen and we already know that Trump sees the EU as being extremely protectionist. (Yes, here's another but) IF China continue on their path of unfair imbalance in trade who knows what the repercussions could be?

A USA/UK deal has the potential to lead to the biggest global trade economy with the possibility of retaining that position for some considerable time. By GDP, USA/UK = $22.2 trillion; EU = $17.7 trillion; China $11.2 trillion.

No, I'm not saying that this will happen or even that it's a possibility but who can really say how events will turn out even over the coming year? It is however quite interesting that China have asked for EU support in opposing USA restrictions. The coming months will prove interesting.

Negotiations of any sort are rarely balanced; one party usually has a stronger position. That includes a .uk us trade deal; one side will need it more than the other. Plus Trumps business style is bullying.

If chlorine washed chicken is allowed in the .uk it'll be hard to avoid after a few years, especially for those on right budgets.

Yes, the eu imports lots of stuff from outside the eu, but all of it still adheres to eu regulations. If we have free access to something doesn't then the eu will need to find some way to prevent it getting into the eu. It may be a case of checking origin and treating anything that started in the US specially, but it'll also need to involve random checks of any .uk sourced chicken.

The same would apply for Australian hormone beef. The further we deviate from eu regulations, the harder it'll be to get goods across the border.

Origin checks would also likely rule out the possibility of countries using the .uk as a gateway to the EU, if it's treated no differently to direct export.

Enterprise_1701C

Tell you one thing for sure, I wouldn't touch eu egg imports with a barge pole. They have a serious problem with salmonella, and cases have now stopped dropping and are indeed spiking. So the eu protects us from food borne problems does it? If that is the case how come, UK eggs are a lot safer?

On top of that we had the Dutch eggs that were contaminated with insecticide last year.

Oh yes, eu foods are so much safer :eek:

kabayiri

Do we really base our entire economic and societal development over what goes into our fried chicken sandwich?

If you dislike chlorine taste you need to flavour it with a bit of fluorine

wunferall

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Tell you one thing for sure, I wouldn't touch eu egg imports with a barge pole. They have a serious problem with salmonella, and cases have now stopped dropping and are indeed spiking. So the eu protects us from food borne problems does it? If that is the case how come, UK eggs are a lot safer?

On top of that we had the Dutch eggs that were contaminated with insecticide last year.

Oh yes, eu foods are so much safer :eek:

We import 15% of our eggs from the EU too.
Meaning that UK consumers have eaten eggs contaminated by insecticide and are still consuming EU salmonella-infected eggs.

Don't worry though because the very possibility of eating hormone-treated beef or chlorine-washed chicken is far worse according to certain remainers here, never mind the fact that nothing has yet been proposed. :doh:

Arklight

wunferall wrote: »

What do I think? Well it's from the Independent for a start which is a bit of a misnomer since they push a "remain" stance.

Then I note that it's a "wish list" and NOT a set of firm guidelines. For example the USTR would like to reduce some standards. That's not the same as actually reducing them, is it? Much could happen to stop the suggestion before it even gets as far as being planned - like outrage from US consumers just for one example.

Also of course nobody either in the USA or here in the UK actually forces the consumer to buy anything. We are both fortunate in already having available a vast choice of what we buy and where we buy it from.

Nobody forces UK buyers to purchase chlorine-washed bags of prepared salad produce yet millions choose to do so on a daily basis. Nobody forces UK buyers to eat French force-fed goose products like pate foie gras. Nobody grumbled at the EU allowing livestock transportation in horrendous conditions and then stopped eating the resulting produce, did they? Nobody even told EU consumers about pesticide-tainted eggs until long after it became a problem or about products illicitly containing horsemeat either, so let's not pretend that the EU's record is exactly good.

So, what do I think about it? I think it's yet another remainer-induced non-story trying to prove that Brexit was wrong - and failing.

You have an absurdly Panglossian view of the world if you think hormone treated beef, chlorine washed chicken and GMO food won!!!8217;t be a red line for a US trade agreement.

While some European countries treatment of animals is unacceptable, it pales into comparison with the conditions the 8.5 billion chickens and 33 million cows are subjected to in America before slaughter each year.

As is endlessly pointed out to Brexiteers, and apparently never understood, we had a large amount of influence over EU policy. We will never have any influence over America.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/trade-society/news/us-renews-fight-against-eu-ban-on-hormone-treated-beef/E willl

kabayiri

Arklight wrote: »

...
As is endlessly pointed out to Brexiteers, and apparently never understood, we had a large amount of influence over EU policy. We will never have any influence over America.
..

I don't believe we really did.

But anyway, I have highlighted the key word in your para : *had*.

The moment the referendum result showed that we were heavily Euro-sceptic, our ability to influence going forward was on the wane.

Give me one good reason why the key EU players should give us lots of influence now?

The relationship has changed.

wunferall

Arklight wrote: »

You have an absurdly Panglossian view of the world if you think hormone treated beef, chlorine washed chicken and GMO food won!!!8217;t be a red line for a US trade agreement.

While some European countries treatment of animals is unacceptable, it pales into comparison with the conditions the 8.5 billion chickens and 33 million cows are subjected to in America before slaughter each year.

As is endlessly pointed out to Brexiteers, and apparently never understood, we had a large amount of influence over EU policy. We will never have any influence over America.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/trade-society/news/us-renews-fight-against-eu-ban-on-hormone-treated-beef/E willl

More accurately Panglossian = remainers adoration of the EU.


I won't try to speak for all Brexiters but personally there is nothing but reality in my view of a post-Brexit Britain. Perhaps you could try the same regarding your obvious hatred of Brexit and at least try to acknowledge some of the many faults of the EU, together with their (at times) detrimental effect upon the UK and others?

There is much more to life than Brexit you know, and there are much more pressing issues regarding the UK's future too. (Which is one reason why I believe we are better off out the EU.)

"Brexit is important - but new industrial revolution is bigger for jobs and prosperity says Chancellor"

It will not be Brexit which influences our economic fortunes and brings jobs but the way we respond to and adapt new technology, the Chancellor Philip Hammond has claimed during a visit to Birmingham.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/brexit-important-new-industrial-revolution-14492653

That is quite possibly the most accurate observation and comment from a UK politician in a long, long time.

Herzlos

I don't adore the eu. Far from it. It's possible to dislike the eu machine whilst thinking Brexit is a bad idea.

You ate sort of right though; we might not get chlorine chicken or hormone beef. But since both have already been touted as red lines, it means we also won't get a trade deal with the us or Australia. Which I'm fine with too. But presumably if we're leaving the eu to make trade deals on our own, there must be a deal we can do with someone?

Ballard

Herzlos wrote: »

But presumably if we're leaving the eu to make trade deals on our own, there must be a deal we can do with someone?

Leavers insisted that as soon as the referendum result was announced the EU would realised that they need us more than we need them and that a trade deal with the bloc would be done and dusted within months.

That hasn't happened but it doesn't matter because as soon as we're able to sign deals with other nations they'll all be rushing to sign on the dotted line.

They cant be wrong twice now, can they? Have faith!

Ballard

Mike_Spilligan wrote: »

"Leavers insisted that as soon as the referendum result was announced the EU would realised that they need us more than we need them and that a trade deal with the bloc would be done and dusted within months."

I wonder if you would be so kind as to show me where "leavers" said this?

Repeatedly but I!!!8217;m not traveling through hundreds of pages looking for it. It was a common mantra at the time (Not just on this forum) so I!!!8217;m surprised that you!!!8217;ve forgotten it.

!!!8220;Do you really think that BMW, VW et al will be happy for tariffs to be implemented on UK-EU trade? They!!!8217;ll be banging on Mrs Merkels door demanding an immediate trade deal. They need us more than we need them!!!!!8221;

Ring any bells?