Will Brexit happen?

adindas

Herzlos said:

Malthusian said:

Yeah but all that subsidy and dumping is fine because it's not tariffs.

Still, can't expect the natives to understand the distinction, eh what old chap.

Seduced by EU promises of barrier-free access to trade with Europe, many African countries have been cajoled into lowering their own trade barriers, which protect sensitive agricultural industries such as poultry.

As soon as the ink is dry on an economic partnership agreement, EU poultry producers flood the African country with frozen poultry at prices well below the cost of production. Consumers in Europe prefer white poultry meat so there is little or no market for chicken thighs and legs. Hence EU poultry producers dump unwanted chicken parts that in Europe are essentially a waste product.

The dumping is definitely a concern and something that should be addressed somehow (I'm not sure how, maybe tariffs), I'm not saying it's not a problem. I'm just saying the Moe's claim of "EU's protectionist tariffs which punish African farmers" is completely inaccurate.

You will need to mention about the Subsidy they give to the Eu farmers making it extremely difficult for the developing country farmers to compete in the global market.  The subsidy is unbelievable: 
" 38% of the EU budget for 2014-2020, equivalent to 363 billion euros ($485.7 billion) of the 960 billion total, or around 50 billion euros a year."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/10/brexit-leaving-eu-farming-agriculture

This practice has been going on for many years. It is a complete abuse of how they use the EU taxpayers money. Another very valid reason why the UK need to leave. I am glad that it has happened. 

Herzlos said:

"They also highlight what'll happen here if we allow the US trade deal - we're going to get a lot of below-cost-price chicken dumped on us. "

Well very good for the UK consumer as you could get a low cost chicken. anyway this is an MSE forum where people are more concerned about money.  If you are talking abut chlorinated chicken, think about american people who have been eating chlorinated chicken for the whole of their life and they are still eating it today ?. Did they get ill after eating this chlorinated chicken ?? Do you think that the FDA in the US will allow that to happen if it deems to be unsafe to consume ?? 

Also many people, including you or one of your family member who have traveled to the US must have tried fast food outlet serving fried chicken such as KFC, Popeye’s, Jollibee, Church's Chicken. Did you or they get ill after eating this chlorinated chicken ?? 

Herzlos

In the same post you're arguing that dumping low cost chicken is both good (when the US does it to us) and bad (when the EU does it to africa). Am I mistaken or are you just showing your bias?

adindas

Herzlos said:

In the same post you're arguing that dumping low cost chicken is both good (when the US does it to us) and bad (when the EU does it to africa). Am I mistaken or are you just showing your bias?

Well as usual you get it wrong again.

The US case vs the EU case is two different things.

The EU is a case of huge subsidy as such that any developing country will not be able to compete fairly.

The US case is not subsidy but innovation, not based on the mambo jumbo argument put forward by the EU because they cannot compete in that level. The US is allowing a chlorinated chicken because there is no convincing scientific argument against it that will allow the FDA to legally block it. Keep in mind, the FDA is guarded by an army of wolrd calss health experts. Also american people have been eating chlorinated chicken for the whole of their life and they are still eating it today ?. Did they get ill after eating this chlorinated chicken ?? Many people, it might be including you or one of your family member, friends relative who have traveled to the US must have tried fast food outlet serving fried chicken such as KFC, Popeye’s, Jollibee, Church's Chicken. Did you or they get ill after eating this chlorinated chicken ?? 

Now the EU Vs Case, Is innovation a bad thing for the economy? If so, please find any Nobel prize winner economist who ever argue against it?? If you could get a product/ service is cheaper in the market because of innovation / technology that make that happen is it a bad thing ? If so, I wonder why there are not many people which I believe including you, are cooking using an ancient method, open fire ?? Why there are not many people nowadays want to walk a few miles a day to work ??

But what for sure all of Nobel prize winner economist agree that  :

-- -Subsidy / Protectionist as a really bad thing to the macro economy, the world economy. That is exactly what the EU have been doing and the amount is eyewatering. 38% of the EU budget for 2014-2020, equivalent to 363 billion euros ($485.7 billion) of the 960 billion totals, or around 50 billion euros a year."

- The creation of the euro zone is a fundamental error of the EU

Herzlos

But the effect is the same right? Cheap EU chicken is putting African chicken farmers out of business by undercutting them, and cheap US chicken will put UK chicken farmers out of business by undercutting them? It's bad for all the farmers but good for the consumers?

The US cheapness isn't down to innovation; it's down to horrible conditions and standards. The chlorine is a symptom and not the problem - it's used to sterilize the faeces and rotten flesh the chickens are covered in when they die, because they don't have room to move at all. It's hard to get exact figures due to reporting mechanisms but it seems that food poisoning is much more common in the US than in the UK.

I'm undecided on subsidies, on the whole I think they shouldn't exist and should be replaced by government ownership - if it's something that we need to keep running it should be state controlled, but if it's something that's just inefficient we should let it fail and try something else.

adindas

Herzlos said:

But the effect is the same right? Cheap EU chicken is putting African chicken farmers out of business by undercutting them, and cheap US chicken will put UK chicken farmers out of business by undercutting them? It's bad for all the farmers but good for the consumers?

The US cheapness isn't down to innovation; it's down to horrible conditions and standards. The chlorine is a symptom and not the problem - it's used to sterilize the faeces and rotten flesh the chickens are covered in when they die, because they don't have room to move at all. It's hard to get exact figures due to reporting mechanisms but it seems that food poisoning is much more common in the US than in the UK.

I'm undecided on subsidies, on the whole I think they shouldn't exist and should be replaced by government ownership - if it's something that we need to keep running it should be state controlled, but if it's something that's just inefficient we should let it fail and try something else.

Herzlos said:

But the effect is the same right? Cheap EU chicken is putting African chicken farmers out of business by undercutting them, and cheap US chicken will put UK chicken farmers out of business by undercutting them? It's bad for all the farmers but good for the consumers?

The US cheapness isn't down to innovation; it's down to horrible conditions and standards. The chlorine is a symptom and not the problem - it's used to sterilize the faeces and rotten flesh the chickens are covered in when they die, because they don't have room to move at all. It's hard to get exact figures due to reporting mechanisms but it seems that food poisoning is much more common in the US than in the UK.

I'm undecided on subsidies, on the whole I think they shouldn't exist and should be replaced by government ownership - if it's something that we need to keep running it should be state controlled, but if it's something that's just inefficient we should let it fail and try something else.

This is a traditional case of huge subsidy (the EU case) vs innovation (the US case).  Huge subsidy is used by prectictionist regime to avoid a fair competition in the market. Huge subsidy is generally considered as unfair, innovation is not.

While both have impact on farmers on the deveoping countries, keep in mind you can not stop innovation as it is desirable. It is the innovation that help feeding the people in the least developed countries, making food available to feed the world. It is the innovation that brings prosperity.

Noone, not a world clas economist rational wants to argue against the Nobel prize winner economists. The fact here is that ALL of world class economists will argue against pretectionist especially huge subsidy, none of them will ever argue against innovation.

Herzlos

There's no innovation. The USA isn't doing anything that we couldn't do with chickens 50 years ago, but we stopped because it was barbaric. There's nothing innovative about force feeding 50,000 chickens in a barn big enough for 10,000 chickens and then bleaching off the excrement.

I'm not arguing for protectionism, I'm arguing for upholding standards. I'm also pointing out your double standard of EU = bad, always whilst US = good, always. Even when they are doing exactly the same thing.

Moe_The_Bartender

Herzlos said:

There's no innovation. The USA isn't doing anything that we couldn't do with chickens 50 years ago, but we stopped because it was barbaric. There's nothing innovative about force feeding 50,000 chickens in a barn big enough for 10,000 chickens and then bleaching off the excrement.

I'm not arguing for protectionism, I'm arguing for upholding standards. I'm also pointing out your double standard of EU = bad, always whilst US = good, always. Even when they are doing exactly the same thing.

When it comes to discussing the merits of Scottish independence, your double standard is Scotland always  good, England always bad.

adindas

Herzlos said:

There's no innovation. The USA isn't doing anything that we couldn't do with chickens 50 years ago, but we stopped because it was barbaric. There's nothing innovative about force feeding 50,000 chickens in a barn big enough for 10,000 chickens and then bleaching off the excrement.

I'm not arguing for protectionism, I'm arguing for upholding standards. I'm also pointing out your double standard of EU = bad, always whilst US = good, always. Even when they are doing exactly the same thing.

Good that you acknowledge they have done a bad thing to the world. I will keep this record for future reference.

If you are the first party to prove a new method, a new way of doing thing and prove it it could work it is an innovation, no matter how easy it is. The fact that later could easily be copied by other people is another matter. And remember all of this method is under close scrutiny from experts.

Regarding poultry product that is what the EU keep preaching you and there is still enough people rational want to believe that. The truth is that the EU do not want the chicken from other countries because the farmers which keep the bureaucrat in Brussel to stay in their comfort seats will punish them. It is also a way to keep the EU countries together.

Regarding the animal cruelty in the EU. What about the Bull fight in Spain, pigtail docking practice across the EU, illegal transportation of  livestock in the former eastern block such as Romania, ?? Why do the EU turn a blind eye on this??. This cruelty practice has been in many documentaries.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/01/revealed-exported-eu-animals-subject-to-abuse-illegal-conditions

Revealed: exported EU animals subject to abuse and illegal conditions

Well, the history has shown they could easily make a rule / regulation law that looks good to the world but later break it if it suits them. That is a the way a mafioso type organisation is operating.

https://www.handelsblatt.com/today/politics/papa-dont-preach-germany-is-the-leading-breaker-of-eu-rules/23581000.html?ticket=ST-153212-kb39JzelOvNj0eq46gQ7-ap4

Germany is the leading breaker of EU rules

Another justificaiton that it is the right decision to leave this Mafiosi type organisation.

Herzlos

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Herzlos said:

There's no innovation. The USA isn't doing anything that we couldn't do with chickens 50 years ago, but we stopped because it was barbaric. There's nothing innovative about force feeding 50,000 chickens in a barn big enough for 10,000 chickens and then bleaching off the excrement.

I'm not arguing for protectionism, I'm arguing for upholding standards. I'm also pointing out your double standard of EU = bad, always whilst US = good, always. Even when they are doing exactly the same thing.

When it comes to discussing the merits of Scottish independence, your double standard is Scotland always  good, England always bad.

Not at all, my line is that Scotland has it's problems, but Westminster is much, much worse. We stand a better chance on our own than being dragged down by England. And I like England, but I'd rather we were good friends rather than a province.

If you've got nothing better to do than try and snipe at me, can you at least try a bit harder to make it interesting or something? It's just tedious and you're making yourself look like a petty fool.

Herzlos

adindas said:

Herzlos said:

There's no innovation. The USA isn't doing anything that we couldn't do with chickens 50 years ago, but we stopped because it was barbaric. There's nothing innovative about force feeding 50,000 chickens in a barn big enough for 10,000 chickens and then bleaching off the excrement.

I'm not arguing for protectionism, I'm arguing for upholding standards. I'm also pointing out your double standard of EU = bad, always whilst US = good, always. Even when they are doing exactly the same thing.

Good that you acknowledge they have done a bad thing to the world. I will keep this record for future reference.

If you are the first party to prove a new method, a new way of doing thing and prove it it could work it is an innovation, no matter how easy it is. The fact that later could easily be copied by other people is another matter. And remember all of this method is under close scrutiny from experts.

Regarding poultry product that is what the EU keep preaching you and there is still enough people rational want to believe that. The truth is that the EU do not want the chicken from other countries because the farmers which keep the bureaucrat in Brussel to stay in their comfort seats will punish them. It is also a way to keep the EU countries together.

Regarding the animal cruelty in the EU. What about pigtail docking practice across the EU especially  in the former eastern block such as Romania, the Bull fight in Spain, illegal transportaion of animal especially ?? Why do the EU turn a blind eye on this??. This cruelty practice has been in many documentaries.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/01/revealed-exported-eu-animals-subject-to-abuse-illegal-conditions

Revealed: exported EU animals subject to abuse and illegal conditions

Well, the history has shown they could easily make a rule / regulation law that looks good but later break it if it suits them, that is the way a mafioso type organisation is operating.

https://www.handelsblatt.com/today/politics/papa-dont-preach-germany-is-the-leading-breaker-of-eu-rules/23581000.html?ticket=ST-153212-kb39JzelOvNj0eq46gQ7-ap4

Germany is the leading breaker of EU rules

Another justificaiton that it is the right decision to leave this Mafiosi type organisation.

Good for you highlighting me saying something that's never been denied.

Though when you're looking for links showing EU cruelty, you should avoid the ones admitting that the conditions are already illegal...

A new way of doing something may technically be innovative, but that doesn't mean it's something to be proud of and aspire to. Remember the fake eggs thing in China? That was innovative too, but should we be trying to copy it?