How do we think EU negotiations will go?
Discussion
///ajd said:
andymadmak said:
Eddie makes the point that US food production is more technology based. Certainly in terms of poultry production that is not the case. Just about all poultry processing plants world wide, of any substantive scale use automated slaughter, including stun, kill, defeather, eviscerate and primary dress. Its simply not economical to do it by hand for chicken meat production.
Much of the technology used for these processes is European, with companies like Stork, Meyn and Baader leading the way.
It gets more complex after that. Many plants world wide still rely on lines of people 'deboning' the chicken. Typically this involves slow moving lines of "cones" onto which the chicken carcase is mounted to allow operators to cut off legs, breasts etc. Wings are usually but not always taken off at the primary stage. The same companies above have invested significant monies in developing automated deboning processes, but in the case of breast meat production in particular the trade off between high yield and excessive bone fragment contamination ( a dangerous foreign body for consumers) means that most lines remaim " manual"
The issue that is in dispute is the use of bactericide washes on chicken carcases, to remove any trace of contamination from the contents of the digestive system that sometimes occurs during the automated slaughter process. Contamination by these materials can lead to significant food safety issues. The US thinks this is best addrssed by the addition of a bactericidal wash. The EU believes that the problem is best addressed by focussing on the proper application of the process. Neither approach is ideal, but in my experience the US approach probably better reflects the reality of production, no matter where you go in the world.
I believe that one of the reasons why the EU was so sensitive on the issue of washing was the emergence of the scandal of tumbling of boneless chicken meat in the 80s and 90s.
Basically, if you put boneless breast meat into a cement mixer ( clean!) with some chemicals ( often just a little salt) plus a volume of water and switch it on, you can make the chicken soak up the water like a sponge. It looks relatively normal ( you have to know what to look for to spot it) but you are essentially selling water for the price per kilo of chicken breast. For some in an industry that frequently worked on single digit % margins, the appeal of selling water as a prime product was too good to miss.
The problem was widespread on the continent ( in particular Holland and Germany) and was not unknown in the UK.
Washing as the Americans do, is too close to tumbling in the minds of some people.
As a general rule, and there are of course exceptions to all rules, US chicken is no more hazardous than UK or EU production. In some key areas ( such as foreign body contamination removal) the US was actually ahead of the EU and the UK.
As I said, storm and teacups
You appear to be know the business Andy.Much of the technology used for these processes is European, with companies like Stork, Meyn and Baader leading the way.
It gets more complex after that. Many plants world wide still rely on lines of people 'deboning' the chicken. Typically this involves slow moving lines of "cones" onto which the chicken carcase is mounted to allow operators to cut off legs, breasts etc. Wings are usually but not always taken off at the primary stage. The same companies above have invested significant monies in developing automated deboning processes, but in the case of breast meat production in particular the trade off between high yield and excessive bone fragment contamination ( a dangerous foreign body for consumers) means that most lines remaim " manual"
The issue that is in dispute is the use of bactericide washes on chicken carcases, to remove any trace of contamination from the contents of the digestive system that sometimes occurs during the automated slaughter process. Contamination by these materials can lead to significant food safety issues. The US thinks this is best addrssed by the addition of a bactericidal wash. The EU believes that the problem is best addressed by focussing on the proper application of the process. Neither approach is ideal, but in my experience the US approach probably better reflects the reality of production, no matter where you go in the world.
I believe that one of the reasons why the EU was so sensitive on the issue of washing was the emergence of the scandal of tumbling of boneless chicken meat in the 80s and 90s.
Basically, if you put boneless breast meat into a cement mixer ( clean!) with some chemicals ( often just a little salt) plus a volume of water and switch it on, you can make the chicken soak up the water like a sponge. It looks relatively normal ( you have to know what to look for to spot it) but you are essentially selling water for the price per kilo of chicken breast. For some in an industry that frequently worked on single digit % margins, the appeal of selling water as a prime product was too good to miss.
The problem was widespread on the continent ( in particular Holland and Germany) and was not unknown in the UK.
Washing as the Americans do, is too close to tumbling in the minds of some people.
As a general rule, and there are of course exceptions to all rules, US chicken is no more hazardous than UK or EU production. In some key areas ( such as foreign body contamination removal) the US was actually ahead of the EU and the UK.
As I said, storm and teacups
///ajd comes up with the understatement of the thread!
Eddie Strohacker said:
If we did do that, then the EU's reaction would certainly be negative, They would view it as a possible backdoor route of proscribed products into the EU via the UK & that leads to complex border issues not least in Ireland & certainly at our ports of entry & exit. That is the problem it creates in doing an FTA deal with the EU & that ultimately hurts consumers.
None of it is insurmountable yet it is an entirely foreseeable outcome that onerous checks on exports become a reality, hindering cross border trade & that's before you get into issues of domestic producers being undercut by cheaper imports or not - hard to tell when two senior ministers disagree in public.
That's simply not the case. FTAs do not care what you do in your own country, or in trading with other nations - they only relate to the conditions of trade between the nations in the FTA, and the standards required at export. None of it is insurmountable yet it is an entirely foreseeable outcome that onerous checks on exports become a reality, hindering cross border trade & that's before you get into issues of domestic producers being undercut by cheaper imports or not - hard to tell when two senior ministers disagree in public.
Just like us having a different electrical standard for home electronics doesn't prevent any FTA with another nation...
Tuna said:
You could look at electrical goods produced in the EU - we have maintained completely incompatible standards in the face of our 27 neighbours going a different way, and our safety standards don't seem to have been hurt by buying dodgy Italian light fittings, despite being part of a free trade area.
Not to be pedantic but the sort of harmonised standards you are referring to or implying do apply across the whole market as is (EN 60950, EN 62368 for example), they include some small country specific alterations and allow for different forms of plugs and sockets for compatibility with country specific mains supply systems. However it is often overlooked in such discussions that any manufacturer with much of a clue will apply these standards wherever they are based on the planet for several reasons:
1) Provides a straightforward means of asserting your product is safe, the two standards noted above include a lot of really sound guidance one can (should) use as a design checklist as part of a thorough design process IMHO. Its only f
ktards that think its clever to try and find ways to not work against widely accepted safety standards, principally to cut corners, I never met an engineer who thought they knew better than these or similar standards in other domains.2) If you ever want to sell into the EU you pretty much have to meet these harmonised technical standards anyway.
3) If you sell world wide and have any sense you attempt to design one product with minimal adaptations for the various markets around the world.
Noises from Brussels on the effect of lowering food standards...
https://www.digitallook.com/news/political-news/br...
https://www.digitallook.com/news/political-news/br...
Sway said:
That's simply not the case. FTAs do not care what you do in your own country, or in trading with other nations - they only relate to the conditions of trade between the nations in the FTA, and the standards required at export.
Just like us having a different electrical standard for home electronics doesn't prevent any FTA with another nation...
He is right in this case Sway, currently the fact we are 100% compliant with the rest of the EU makes it much easier to argue for and set up very light touch customs arrangements. As soon as we allow importation of non compliant goods it complicates that arrangement as the EU will want safeguards to ensure such goods are not re-exported into their market.Just like us having a different electrical standard for home electronics doesn't prevent any FTA with another nation...
NJH said:
Sway said:
That's simply not the case. FTAs do not care what you do in your own country, or in trading with other nations - they only relate to the conditions of trade between the nations in the FTA, and the standards required at export.
Just like us having a different electrical standard for home electronics doesn't prevent any FTA with another nation...
He is right in this case Sway, currently the fact we are 100% compliant with the rest of the EU makes it much easier to argue for and set up very light touch customs arrangements. As soon as we allow importation of non compliant goods it complicates that arrangement as the EU will want safeguards to ensure such goods are not re-exported into their market.Just like us having a different electrical standard for home electronics doesn't prevent any FTA with another nation...
PurpleMoonlight said:
FTA's typically only cover goods produced and manufactured within the county.
It would not usually cover an imported item which is then simply exported again. This is to stop the tariff free back door.
Indeed. Hence country of origin... Slasher took a while to realise this! It would not usually cover an imported item which is then simply exported again. This is to stop the tariff free back door.
Eddie Strohacker said:
Sway said:
Nothing. Free trade is defined as no tariffs.
Come on man, that's your ego fking with you. If I can show a little humility, I'm sure you can too. 
However, it is true. I've a fair amount of experience with complex supply chains covering many legislatures/trading arrangements/customs requirements. Yes, there may be some delays for inspection, and costs of customs staff and equipment to conduct them.
However, this merely requires adjustment. It doesn't cause any reductions in trade, fresh produce doesn't rot in the bonded areas, operations don't grind to a halt...
We build engines in Swindon that are shipped to factories across the globe that operate JiT to the fullest. Japanese production lines rely on them. We don't have an FTA with Japan, so inspections are routine. They choose to levy no tariffs...
Sway said:
Fair cop, was a tad facetious.
However, it is true. I've a fair amount of experience with complex supply chains covering many legislatures/trading arrangements/customs requirements. Yes, there may be some delays for inspection, and costs of customs staff and equipment to conduct them.
However, this merely requires adjustment. It doesn't cause any reductions in trade, fresh produce doesn't rot in the bonded areas, operations don't grind to a halt...
We build engines in Swindon that are shipped to factories across the globe that operate JiT to the fullest. Japanese production lines rely on them. We don't have an FTA with Japan, so inspections are routine. They choose to levy no tariffs...
Agree up to a point. Firstly, trade won't go off a cliff, it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise, however, FTA's are one thing. Non tariff barriers which is the core issue of a scenario whereby lower regulatory standard foodstuffs are imported are another.However, it is true. I've a fair amount of experience with complex supply chains covering many legislatures/trading arrangements/customs requirements. Yes, there may be some delays for inspection, and costs of customs staff and equipment to conduct them.
However, this merely requires adjustment. It doesn't cause any reductions in trade, fresh produce doesn't rot in the bonded areas, operations don't grind to a halt...
We build engines in Swindon that are shipped to factories across the globe that operate JiT to the fullest. Japanese production lines rely on them. We don't have an FTA with Japan, so inspections are routine. They choose to levy no tariffs...
The indications from the EU so far is any relaxing of standards will lead to an increase of checks & border friction. It's not where we are, it's where we're going that counts.
You can argue the toss over NTB's all day, loads of them are clearly protectionist measures slapped on for political reasons, anti dumping, domestic producers etc. but they are there & they're not going away.
Eddie Strohacker said:
Sway said:
Fair cop, was a tad facetious.
However, it is true. I've a fair amount of experience with complex supply chains covering many legislatures/trading arrangements/customs requirements. Yes, there may be some delays for inspection, and costs of customs staff and equipment to conduct them.
However, this merely requires adjustment. It doesn't cause any reductions in trade, fresh produce doesn't rot in the bonded areas, operations don't grind to a halt...
We build engines in Swindon that are shipped to factories across the globe that operate JiT to the fullest. Japanese production lines rely on them. We don't have an FTA with Japan, so inspections are routine. They choose to levy no tariffs...
Agree up to a point. Firstly, trade won't go off a cliff, it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise, however, FTA's are one thing. Non tariff barriers which is the core issue of a scenario whereby lower regulatory standard foodstuffs are imported are another.However, it is true. I've a fair amount of experience with complex supply chains covering many legislatures/trading arrangements/customs requirements. Yes, there may be some delays for inspection, and costs of customs staff and equipment to conduct them.
However, this merely requires adjustment. It doesn't cause any reductions in trade, fresh produce doesn't rot in the bonded areas, operations don't grind to a halt...
We build engines in Swindon that are shipped to factories across the globe that operate JiT to the fullest. Japanese production lines rely on them. We don't have an FTA with Japan, so inspections are routine. They choose to levy no tariffs...
The indications from the EU so far is any relaxing of standards will lead to an increase of checks & border friction. It's not where we are, it's where we're going that counts.
You can argue the toss over NTB's all day, loads of them are clearly protectionist measures slapped on for political reasons, anti dumping, domestic producers etc. but they are there & they're not going away.
There's no suggestion that we would adopt the same standards as the US, that's a choice for us - and if it would cause significant issues for external trade then there would likely be a decision in favour of keeping the same standards as today.
Just because we are willing to accept imports under a different operating standard has no logical impact on the quality and standards we apply to our own production.
Sway said:
True, but that simply doesn't apply in this scenario.
There's no suggestion that we would adopt the same standards as the US, that's a choice for us - and if it would cause significant issues for external trade then there would likely be a decision in favour of keeping the same standards as today.
Just because we are willing to accept imports under a different operating standard has no logical impact on the quality and standards we apply to our own production.
This is all logical, however, we've had different pronouncements on the same day from two senior cabinet ministers, so who can tell what the policy will be?There's no suggestion that we would adopt the same standards as the US, that's a choice for us - and if it would cause significant issues for external trade then there would likely be a decision in favour of keeping the same standards as today.
Just because we are willing to accept imports under a different operating standard has no logical impact on the quality and standards we apply to our own production.
The idea that we run dual standards for domestic & import is a non starter imo. If we run higher cost domestically alongside cheap imports, we'll be cutting the throats of our own producers & still have a problem with the EU. The poultry trade body thinks so anyway.
http://www.britishpoultry.org.uk/exporting-a-cruci...
Eddie Strohacker said:
This is all logical, however, we've had different pronouncements on the same day from two senior cabinet ministers, so who can tell what the policy will be?
...
And that is why the desire for minute by minute pronouncements is foolhardy....
We also need to be careful what we take as quotes and to understand the context.
Unfortunately the majority of the population simply live off red top soundbites without questioning any of it.
I would love to be involved in the exit negotiations. But one bit I do not envy Davis on is securing the comms channels. Not only does he have to deal with a negotiating counterpart that has verbal diarrhoea when it suits them, but his own nation can't be sensible either.
Still, we've moved forward that you now acknowledge trade won't fall off a cliff. So how much of the 44% of our exporting we do with the EU do you think will fall off?
Murph7355 said:
Still, we've moved forward that you now acknowledge trade won't fall off a cliff. So how much of the 44% of our exporting we do with the EU do you think will fall off?
Before I answer, you acknowledge the issues spelt out by lowering food standards for the consumer & for trade? 
Anyway, the answer to your question is unquantifiable in advance of concluding negotiations which is why I imagine you're pursuing it so hard. However, I challenge you to find an analysis from a reputable source that says an FTA with the US will get anywhere near UK EU trade levels.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff