How do we think EU negotiations will go?
Discussion
Eddie Strohacker said:
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...
Do we require Chinese exporters to us to adopt the same employment rights and minimum wages that we require our manufacturers to apply? No.
The poultry trade body is doing what every single trade body is doing - making noise to gain concessions and competitive advantage. If they really cannot compete with equal quality providers (especially seeing as in this instance the US producers have an additional legislative driven cost), plus the shipping costs, then should we really be protecting them and causing everyone to spend more on a core foodstuff than is necessary?
Our guys are already competing with producers in Eastern Europe, who have lower wage/feed/energy/overhead costs. Or rather, they're not. We have some providers that compete directly due to the creation of vertically integrated operations. Then we have suppliers who don't compete - they provide goods with higher welfare, and a higher price, with the Union Flag prominent on the packaging.
The Poles supply the vast majority of 'ingredient' chicken for ready meals, etc.
Was there any answer to the predicted drop in EU trade ? You said it couldn't be made up by other trade deals, which does imply you have an idea of a figure in mind. Would be interesting to know.
Was also interesting to read you comments on the Labour party , along with your views on why voting LibDem was a waste of time because they had no chance. Do we have more than a few closet Remainers on here who voted Tory/May and endorsing her plans re the SM and CU ? Looks more and more like it.
Was also interesting to read you comments on the Labour party , along with your views on why voting LibDem was a waste of time because they had no chance. Do we have more than a few closet Remainers on here who voted Tory/May and endorsing her plans re the SM and CU ? Looks more and more like it.
Eddie Strohacker said:
Before I answer, you acknowledge the issues spelt out by lowering food standards for the consumer & for trade? 
...
Nope....
We're not necessarily talking about lowering standards. And even if we were, my view remains that the market (the consumer) will sort it just as they do today with the many and varied tiered products we already have.
Eddie Strohacker said:
...
Anyway, the answer to your question is unquantifiable in advance of concluding negotiations which is why I imagine you're pursuing it so hard.
In terms of being a PITA I'm not even trying yet Anyway, the answer to your question is unquantifiable in advance of concluding negotiations which is why I imagine you're pursuing it so hard.
But we agree on the unquantifiable nature of it. Have been saying this for over 12mths.Eddie Strohacker said:
...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.
We don't trade with the "EU". We have a healthy balance of trade export wise with just 6 of its member states. There are around another half a dozen who I think are important.
But why does trade with the US have to match that with "the EU"? To keep us on a relatively even keel, all that needs to happen is trade with RoW has to match the drop in trade with the EU. And as we cannot quantify the latter, no one can make any statements as to our dire trading predicament. Or otherwise.
If we're basing life on hypotheses, then the increase in the proportion of our trade with RoW even under arguably "unfavourable" terms is probably a good stat. But we won't know for a good few years yet. And by that time, we'll have no idea whether it would have been better or worse had we stayed. Depending on what's happening with the EU/Euro at that point.
Sway said:
We run dual standards for everything.
Do we require Chinese exporters to us to adopt the same employment rights and minimum wages that we require our manufacturers to apply? No.
The poultry trade body is doing what every single trade body is doing - making noise to gain concessions and competitive advantage. If they really cannot compete with equal quality providers (especially seeing as in this instance the US producers have an additional legislative driven cost), plus the shipping costs, then should we really be protecting them and causing everyone to spend more on a core foodstuff than is necessary?
Our guys are already competing with producers in Eastern Europe, who have lower wage/feed/energy/overhead costs. Or rather, they're not. We have some providers that compete directly due to the creation of vertically integrated operations. Then we have suppliers who don't compete - they provide goods with higher welfare, and a higher price, with the Union Flag prominent on the packaging.
The Poles supply the vast majority of 'ingredient' chicken for ready meals, etc.
You're comparing apples with oranges. Wages, working conditions, utility costs etc. are internal domestic matters. What's at stake here is a trade standard, not a bill of workers rights. There are multiple EU sources, one of which I've quoted today saying clearly that if we drop regulatory standards on food imports, it represents a backdoor import risk to the EU & they will have a problem with it. Pretty simple to understand I would have thought.Do we require Chinese exporters to us to adopt the same employment rights and minimum wages that we require our manufacturers to apply? No.
The poultry trade body is doing what every single trade body is doing - making noise to gain concessions and competitive advantage. If they really cannot compete with equal quality providers (especially seeing as in this instance the US producers have an additional legislative driven cost), plus the shipping costs, then should we really be protecting them and causing everyone to spend more on a core foodstuff than is necessary?
Our guys are already competing with producers in Eastern Europe, who have lower wage/feed/energy/overhead costs. Or rather, they're not. We have some providers that compete directly due to the creation of vertically integrated operations. Then we have suppliers who don't compete - they provide goods with higher welfare, and a higher price, with the Union Flag prominent on the packaging.
The Poles supply the vast majority of 'ingredient' chicken for ready meals, etc.
Murph7355 said:
Eddie Strohacker said:
Before I answer, you acknowledge the issues spelt out by lowering food standards for the consumer & for trade?
...
Nope....
We're not necessarily talking about lowering standards. And even if we were, my view remains that the market (the consumer) will sort it just as they do today with the many and varied tiered products we already have.
Eddie Strohacker said:
Sway said:
We run dual standards for everything.
Do we require Chinese exporters to us to adopt the same employment rights and minimum wages that we require our manufacturers to apply? No.
The poultry trade body is doing what every single trade body is doing - making noise to gain concessions and competitive advantage. If they really cannot compete with equal quality providers (especially seeing as in this instance the US producers have an additional legislative driven cost), plus the shipping costs, then should we really be protecting them and causing everyone to spend more on a core foodstuff than is necessary?
Our guys are already competing with producers in Eastern Europe, who have lower wage/feed/energy/overhead costs. Or rather, they're not. We have some providers that compete directly due to the creation of vertically integrated operations. Then we have suppliers who don't compete - they provide goods with higher welfare, and a higher price, with the Union Flag prominent on the packaging.
The Poles supply the vast majority of 'ingredient' chicken for ready meals, etc.
You're comparing apples with oranges. Wages, working conditions, utility costs etc. are internal domestic matters. What's at stake here is a trade standard, not a bill of workers rights. There are multiple EU sources, one of which I've quoted today saying clearly that if we drop regulatory standards on food imports, it represents a backdoor import risk to the EU & they will have a problem with it. Pretty simple to understand I would have thought.Do we require Chinese exporters to us to adopt the same employment rights and minimum wages that we require our manufacturers to apply? No.
The poultry trade body is doing what every single trade body is doing - making noise to gain concessions and competitive advantage. If they really cannot compete with equal quality providers (especially seeing as in this instance the US producers have an additional legislative driven cost), plus the shipping costs, then should we really be protecting them and causing everyone to spend more on a core foodstuff than is necessary?
Our guys are already competing with producers in Eastern Europe, who have lower wage/feed/energy/overhead costs. Or rather, they're not. We have some providers that compete directly due to the creation of vertically integrated operations. Then we have suppliers who don't compete - they provide goods with higher welfare, and a higher price, with the Union Flag prominent on the packaging.
The Poles supply the vast majority of 'ingredient' chicken for ready meals, etc.
t. We already, under existing rules, import certain goods that are produced according to the standards set by the EU. From nations that internally permit practices that do not conform...
To suggest that this is a massive risk that holds huge implications for us being able to trade is absurd - we don't accept GMO wheat into the EU, yet the EU does import wheat from the US where they do permit it. As is normal, and applied internally, traceability is mandatory as is random testing by the processing recipient.
Eddie Strohacker said:
You may not be, a whole lot of others are, discount that at your own risk.
Possibly fair enough. But in the specific example you gave, someone with what on the face of it is deep knowledge of the industry isn't convinced the "standards" are there for the right reasons, or actually increase risk at all.Just as trade with the EU is not going to fall off a cliff edge, we're also not all suddenly going to die of food poisoning, electrocution, houses falling down, cars spontaneously combusting etc just because we left the EU. What it does do is open up the opportunity (and only that) for us to modify what we are prepared to import/accept based on what is right (on balance) for us rather than trying to accommodate the disparate wishes of 28 nations.
I can't see how that is a "bad thing".
Sway said:
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...
Eddie Strohacker said:
You're comparing apples with oranges. Wages, working conditions, utility costs etc. are internal domestic matters. What's at stake here is a trade standard, not a bill of workers rights. There are multiple EU sources, one of which I've quoted today saying clearly that if we drop regulatory standards on food imports, it represents a backdoor import risk to the EU & they will have a problem with it. Pretty simple to understand I would have thought.
EEA & EFTA countries have free trade agreements with several countries which the EU do not and the EU manage to cope with it. Sway said:
They may be saying that, but frankly, it's bullst.
We already, under existing rules, import certain goods that are produced according to the standards set by the EU. From nations that internally permit practices that do not conform...
To suggest that this is a massive risk that holds huge implications for us being able to trade is absurd - we don't accept GMO wheat into the EU, yet the EU does import wheat from the US where they do permit it. As is normal, and applied internally, traceability is mandatory as is random testing by the processing recipient.
This has gone entirely circular. The issue is whether or not we lower regulatory standards & the clearly spelt out by the EU risks to trade of doing so.t. We already, under existing rules, import certain goods that are produced according to the standards set by the EU. From nations that internally permit practices that do not conform...
To suggest that this is a massive risk that holds huge implications for us being able to trade is absurd - we don't accept GMO wheat into the EU, yet the EU does import wheat from the US where they do permit it. As is normal, and applied internally, traceability is mandatory as is random testing by the processing recipient.
You're not having it, that's your prerogative. From my perspective, it's just another tea & crumpets Brexiteer in an entrenched position that won't move an inch no matter how much hot, steaming evidence you place under their nose. So fair enough, have a great day & I'm moving on rather than repeat myself to no great purpose for the next three days.
Eddie Strohacker said:
This has gone entirely circular. The issue is whether or not we lower regulatory standards & the clearly spelt out by the EU risks to trade of doing so.
That applies to any sort of 3rd party agreements. If we negotiate any sort of deals outside of the EU then even if that excludes agriculture and standards there is a risk of tariff free goods being into the EU by the back door.This is why you can't have a customs union and be able to have self negotiated free trade agreements however minor or comprehensive.
I don't think anyone is under any illusion about this. It is a simple binary choice: In the Customs Union and subject to the EU handling external trade for us or outside and doing it ourselves. EEA/EFTA countries choose the latter (there are Customs between Norway and Sweden for example) even though they are full Single Market members.
Eddie Strohacker said:
Sway said:
They may be saying that, but frankly, it's bullst.
We already, under existing rules, import certain goods that are produced according to the standards set by the EU. From nations that internally permit practices that do not conform...
To suggest that this is a massive risk that holds huge implications for us being able to trade is absurd - we don't accept GMO wheat into the EU, yet the EU does import wheat from the US where they do permit it. As is normal, and applied internally, traceability is mandatory as is random testing by the processing recipient.
This has gone entirely circular. The issue is whether or not we lower regulatory standards & the clearly spelt out by the EU risks to trade of doing so.t. We already, under existing rules, import certain goods that are produced according to the standards set by the EU. From nations that internally permit practices that do not conform...
To suggest that this is a massive risk that holds huge implications for us being able to trade is absurd - we don't accept GMO wheat into the EU, yet the EU does import wheat from the US where they do permit it. As is normal, and applied internally, traceability is mandatory as is random testing by the processing recipient.
You're not having it, that's your prerogative. From my perspective, it's just another tea & crumpets Brexiteer in an entrenched position that won't move an inch no matter how much hot, steaming evidence you place under their nose. So fair enough, have a great day & I'm moving on rather than repeat myself to no great purpose for the next three days.
You cited concerns that a future trading relationship could in and of itself damage our ability to trade with the EU. Bactericide washed chicken being the example, with your concern supported by comments from EU sources.
Let's move away from chickens, and I'll break it down for absolute clarity.
We will be a third nation when we leave.
In order to export to the EU, we will need to ensure the product we are sending meets eu standards.
EU sources are saying that if, as a third nation, change our internal market standards (or change importation standards from other third nations) that this creates a backdoor exportation risk for the EU, which would limit the ability to agree a FTA or have smooth customs processes.
However, there is a third nation today (the US) that has very different internal standards. Bactericide washed chicken and gmo wheat being merely two examples of probably thousands. Yet customs are not a challenge for US import into the EU, and the EU have been trying to agree a FTA with the US.
So frankly, the EU sources are talking b
ks. There is a direct comparison of our proposed situation in action today, with none of the challenges to trade that the aforementioned EU sources are claiming will apply to us... All a bit above my head but do we not already import / export to countries other than the EU 27 & US? In fact I do believe we may already sell / buy non EU products to and from other EU countries.
For example I was under the impression we import something like 25% of our meat from outside the EU but this is currently restricted by the EU having high import duties and quotas...dare I mention I believe we already import chicken from some South American countries and even Thailand which, for me personally, would be more worrying in terms of lower regulatory standards than the USA, it being the home of the compensation culture and all that.
For example I was under the impression we import something like 25% of our meat from outside the EU but this is currently restricted by the EU having high import duties and quotas...dare I mention I believe we already import chicken from some South American countries and even Thailand which, for me personally, would be more worrying in terms of lower regulatory standards than the USA, it being the home of the compensation culture and all that.
alfie2244 said:
All a bit above my head but do we not already import / export to countries other than the EU 27 & US? In fact I do believe we may already sell / buy non EU products to and from other EU countries.
For example I was under the impression we import something like 25% of our meat from outside the EU but this is currently restricted by the EU having high import duties and quotas...dare I mention I believe we already import chicken from some South American countries and even Thailand which, for me personally, would be more worrying in terms of lower regulatory standards than the USA, it being the home of the compensation culture and all that.
Export restrictions notwithstanding Argentinian beef is a cut-above (sorry had to) even British beef.For example I was under the impression we import something like 25% of our meat from outside the EU but this is currently restricted by the EU having high import duties and quotas...dare I mention I believe we already import chicken from some South American countries and even Thailand which, for me personally, would be more worrying in terms of lower regulatory standards than the USA, it being the home of the compensation culture and all that.
Carl_Manchester said:
alfie2244 said:
All a bit above my head but do we not already import / export to countries other than the EU 27 & US? In fact I do believe we may already sell / buy non EU products to and from other EU countries.
For example I was under the impression we import something like 25% of our meat from outside the EU but this is currently restricted by the EU having high import duties and quotas...dare I mention I believe we already import chicken from some South American countries and even Thailand which, for me personally, would be more worrying in terms of lower regulatory standards than the USA, it being the home of the compensation culture and all that.
Export restrictions notwithstanding Argentinian beef is a cut-above (sorry had to) even British beef.For example I was under the impression we import something like 25% of our meat from outside the EU but this is currently restricted by the EU having high import duties and quotas...dare I mention I believe we already import chicken from some South American countries and even Thailand which, for me personally, would be more worrying in terms of lower regulatory standards than the USA, it being the home of the compensation culture and all that.
Carl_Manchester said:
Export restrictions notwithstanding Argentinian beef is a cut-above (sorry had to) even British beef.
Not so sure now, speaking with an Argentinian colleague, they've recognised the cachet surrounding argie beef, and are capitalising on it by upping production massively - removing the reasons why it was so well regarded in the first place! Although I will admit I had an absolutely amazing picanha rump a little while ago that cooked and tasted sublime.
Devon waygu is my current go to supplier - currently cross breed, but pure breed starting next year. Slow raised, and bloody lovely. Or Chichester Three Harbour Beef, which is just something else due to their diet.
Sway said:
Devon waygu is my current go to supplier - currently cross breed, but pure breed starting next year. Slow raised, and bloody lovely. Or Chichester Three Harbour Beef, which is just something else due to their diet.
Not sure but think this is pure bred.....bloody lovely though either way.https://alternativemeats.co.uk/catalog/category/vi...
Edited by alfie2244 on Thursday 27th July 14:13
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff