How do we think EU negotiations will go?

[Deptford Draylons]

pgh said:

Maltese prime minister: For the first time, I'm starting to believe Brexit won't happen - The Independent
https://apple.news/A5MTg76MvS16bO9Ay6lBEbg

This article complete with some incredible politician weasel words gave me a strong reminder of why I'm happy we're leaving the EU.

The will of the people, what do they know about their own lives? Oblique reference to the rise to power of Hitler too. Never met the Maltese Prime Minister but I don't think very much of him based on this.

It's a non story and just fodder for the Indy reader and those that scan it hourly for a ' we're doomed ' Brexit story to post on forums.
So he wants us to negotiate and vote on that at the end of it. This will of course ensure there would a meaningful negotiation without any chance of them offering a catastrophically bad deal in a desperate one last hope to make us stay. Total bks.

[Dr Jekyll]

That's what's striking about so many EU politicians. They claim to be convinced that we'll be far worse off for leaving, but also seem to want us to stay in the EU. Which is it?

[Robertj21a]

Dr Jekyll said:

That's what's striking about so many EU politicians. They claim to be convinced that we'll be far worse off for leaving, but also seem to want us to stay in the EU. Which is it?

I don't care, we're leaving - seemingly none too soon either.

It's hardly surprising that so many voted to leave. It's just more surprising that they had the foresight to realise how bad the EU is for us.

[ORD]

Dr Jekyll said:

That's what's striking about so many EU politicians. They claim to be convinced that we'll be far worse off for leaving, but also seem to want us to stay in the EU. Which is it?

Eh?

Those two things are entirely consistent! The UK leaving the EU will harm both the UK and the EU.

[Einion Yrth]

ORD said:

Dr Jekyll said:

That's what's striking about so many EU politicians. They claim to be convinced that we'll be far worse off for leaving, but also seem to want us to stay in the EU. Which is it?

Eh?

Those two things are entirely consistent! The UK leaving the EU will harm both the UK and the EU.

Only if certain entities choose to negotiate in less than good faith. It could easily be better for both parties.

[///ajd]

Einion Yrth said:

ORD said:

Dr Jekyll said:

That's what's striking about so many EU politicians. They claim to be convinced that we'll be far worse off for leaving, but also seem to want us to stay in the EU. Which is it?

Eh?

Those two things are entirely consistent! The UK leaving the EU will harm both the UK and the EU.

Only if certain entities choose to negotiate in less than good faith. It could easily be better for both parties.

It is also quite logical to conclude it will be worse for both parties - it is a lot less painful allround if we stay.

The really pointless thing is that we face a worse trade deal to enable immigration control - control we don't even spend money to control today, and May has never used the controls she's had for donkeys years.

Still, I suspect like Ambers Ruddy-study# is going to put the cat amongst the pigeons.

# - this maybe how it could be cursed once published.

[HarryW]

///ajd said:

andymadmak said:

Yes and no. Its a bit more complex than that. There are US producers of air chilled chicken too. Whilst it is true that air chill costs more, I would say that the real savings that make up the bulk of the cost differential is in the cost of feed. The US produces vast quantities of high quality low cost feed compared to europe, and since feed costs account for around 65% of poultry production costs, its a sizable factor. Add in the enormous economies of scale typical to US production and you can account for more of the difference.

The types of bird used for parent stock, meat production etc are common to both sides of the Atlantic

What about the testing for Salmonella and killing a flock if its discovered? Sounds like that happens in the EU, and could be a cost driver. It seems that does not happen in the US - any salmonella goes in the chlorine wash.

If it is the food, and its really 20% cheaper, I assume the EU can't just import the food or they would already, perhaps transport costs are an issue. It would be interesting to know if a 20% difference would see them exported or if the transport costs might be an issue - I guess supermarkets would determine that as they chase every last penny of profit.

Do you think US chicken - if it is 20% cheaper - would be imported to UK if allowed?

I think the real argument is the EU is trying to maintain animal welfare and eliminate salmonella at source whereas the US approach seems to be wash it off at the end. As someone that only buys the highest welfare standard in our meat and poultry I can agree with the EU stance on this, not everyone can afford to do that though.
However to put the chlorine contamination into perspective here's an EU report on the amount of chlorine contamination found in fruit and vegitables that exceed EU limits, it's about 10% within the EU http://www.eurl-pesticides.eu/userfiles/file/EurlS...

I honestly think they should drop the chlorine line and talk more about welfare standards.

[Einion Yrth]

///ajd said:

it is a lot less painful allround if we stay.

In your oddly deluded version of reality, perhaps. I disagree, as did a majority of the electorate.

[///ajd]

Einion Yrth said:

///ajd said:

it is a lot less painful allround if we stay.

In your oddly deluded version of reality, perhaps. I disagree, as did a majority of the electorate.

I said it was "also" logical for that perspective.

There is this misconception that "winning" the election makes that side right about everything.

That of course is not the case at all.

You are of course free to hold whatever opinion you like, but mocking EU politicians for a view that is supported by many and also lets face it backed by a huge amount of informed opinion and analysis is at least open to challenge.

Its not a deluded version of reality. Odds are it is reality, no matter how much you wish it weren't.

[Einion Yrth]

///ajd said:

I said it was "also" logical for that perspective.

There is this misconception that "winning" the election makes that side right about everything.

That of course is not the case at all.

You are of course free to hold whatever opinion you like, but mocking EU politicians for a view that is supported by many and also lets face it backed by a huge amount of informed opinion and analysis is at least open to challenge.

Its not a deluded version of reality. Odds are it is reality, no matter how much you wish it weren't.

We're leaving. Whatever happens we'll never know if things would have been better or worse in your alternate reality.

[alfie2244]

///ajd said:

it is a lot less painful allround if we stay.

Slasher strikes again.

[don'tbesilly]

///ajd said:

Einion Yrth said:

ORD said:

Dr Jekyll said:

That's what's striking about so many EU politicians. They claim to be convinced that we'll be far worse off for leaving, but also seem to want us to stay in the EU. Which is it?

Eh?

Those two things are entirely consistent! The UK leaving the EU will harm both the UK and the EU.

Only if certain entities choose to negotiate in less than good faith. It could easily be better for both parties.

Ambers Ruddy-study

Did you get that little ditty from the comments section of the Guardian, or was it the Independent?

[///ajd]

Einion Yrth said:

///ajd said:

I said it was "also" logical for that perspective.

There is this misconception that "winning" the election makes that side right about everything.

That of course is not the case at all.

You are of course free to hold whatever opinion you like, but mocking EU politicians for a view that is supported by many and also lets face it backed by a huge amount of informed opinion and analysis is at least open to challenge.

Its not a deluded version of reality. Odds are it is reality, no matter how much you wish it weren't.

We're leaving. Whatever happens we'll never know if things would have been better or worse in your alternate reality.

It appears that many find great comfort in "never knowing" if it would have been better or worse.

Thing is that actually proves that you can't say the EU politicians are wrong, can you? By your own admissions "we'll never know".

So they could well be right, but we can claim "we'll never know". That's not really good enough for many.

[Robertj21a]

///ajd said:

It appears that many find great comfort in "never knowing" if it would have been better or worse.

Thing is that actually proves that you can't say the EU politicians are wrong, can you? By your own admissions "we'll never know".

So they could well be right, but we can claim "we'll never know". That's not really good enough for many.

Who cares anyway (apart from you just trying to rake up more problems) ?

We're leaving - get over it.

[jjlynn27]

Einion Yrth said:

ORD said:

Dr Jekyll said:

That's what's striking about so many EU politicians. They claim to be convinced that we'll be far worse off for leaving, but also seem to want us to stay in the EU. Which is it?

Eh?

Those two things are entirely consistent! The UK leaving the EU will harm both the UK and the EU.

Only if certain entities choose to negotiate in less than good faith. It could easily be better for both parties.

I love that logic. The perpetual 'I'm a victim' card holder. If everything doesn't go my way, it's someone else's fault. as they didn't negotiate in 'good faith'.

You?

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/b...

[turbobloke]

///ajd said:

Einion Yrth said:

///ajd said:

I said it was "also" logical for that perspective.

There is this misconception that "winning" the election makes that side right about everything.

That of course is not the case at all.

You are of course free to hold whatever opinion you like, but mocking EU politicians for a view that is supported by many and also lets face it backed by a huge amount of informed opinion and analysis is at least open to challenge.

Its not a deluded version of reality. Odds are it is reality, no matter how much you wish it weren't.

We're leaving. Whatever happens we'll never know if things would have been better or worse in your alternate reality.

It appears that many find great comfort in "never knowing" if it would have been better or worse.

Thing is that actually proves that you can't say the EU politicians are wrong, can you? By your own admissions "we'll never know".

Wrong about what? It depends on what a particular politician says about any particular subject on a given day, the next day it may change or the same day another politician may say the opposite.

It may well be that an EU politician is demonstrably wrong, another EU politician may turn out to be correct at some point on another topic. So what?

The key issue is that there's no way of re-running the past, and no way of knowing the future, it's what we make of it, predictions of economic doom are an example so they need to be treated accordingly. Particularly if economists agree, which is a common kiss of death for any projection.

It's not about one or more EU politicians being wrong in some vague general sense.

[///ajd]

jjlynn27 said:

I love that logic. The perpetual 'I'm a victim' card holder. If everything doesn't go my way, it's someone else's fault. as they didn't negotiate in 'good faith'.

You?

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/b...

Classic

“I remember when Nathan went to negotiate himself a pay rise. They cut his hours and moved him to nights.”

It does raise the little discussed topic of what limits on movement will apply to UK citizens post brexit.

What are the rules for working in the EU for non-EU nationals, as the UK will become. Have they been listed anywhere?

[s2art]

///ajd said:

What are the rules for working in the EU for non-EU nationals, as the UK will become. Have they been listed anywhere?

Only by every country in the EU.

[andymadmak]

///ajd said:

What about the testing for Salmonella and killing a flock if its discovered? Sounds like that happens in the EU, and could be a cost driver. It seems that does not happen in the US - any salmonella goes in the chlorine wash.

If it is the food, and its really 20% cheaper, I assume the EU can't just import the food or they would already, perhaps transport costs are an issue. It would be interesting to know if a 20% difference would see them exported or if the transport costs might be an issue - I guess supermarkets would determine that as they chase every last penny of profit.

Do you think US chicken - if it is 20% cheaper - would be imported to UK if allowed?

Ok, i will try to answer your questions, but you have to try to understand the answers. This really is not a black and white issue. Its complex, and I fear we are boring people to tears by dragging this out!

1. Salmonella testing is carried out on both sides of the pond. Its a rare occurance these days thanks to the bio security in place at most chicken rearing facilities ( the most notable exceptions being the free range organic farms!) Many of the bugs like salmonella, campylobacter and such like occcur due to compromises in bio security as much as any other factor - wild birds infiltrating facilities, contaminants carried in on footware, clothing etc.
The incidence of contamination is low in Europe, meaning that the cost of flock slaughter in the event of detection does not explain the difference in cost of production.

2. The chlorine, ( most likely actually peracetic acid in reality) is not only there for the salmonella. During slaughter, the guts and gizzard of the bird are removed mechanically, and if they are damaged in that process, or by rough handling before slaughter,,then it is possible thatbthe nasties contained therein will contaminate the surface of the meat. All chickens, be they eu or usa go through a water bath process during slaughter, to soften feathers prior to removal, so cross contamination is a plausible reality. The major difference is that the US allows for a bactericidal wash or bactericidal wet chill process ( to bring carcase temperature down) to further protect against that contamination.
The EU uses air chilling to bring temperatures down, and relies on there having been good handling upstream so as to my minimise the risk of contamination by viscera during the slaughter process. Since both EU and US use largely the same slaughter equipment, produced by the same manufacturers ( many european in origin) the actual differences in contamination come via a combination of luck, individual operator competence and the quality of the stock being processed. By and large most US stock is very good quality.

3, the overall cost difference may or may not be as much as 20% at some points. It will never be a consistent number. It will depend on a number of factors. Feed costs are a major one of course, as are economies of scale, currency movements Equally important will be yields and external markets. If you can get a great price for your thigh meat in china ( for example) you can take a lower price on your breast meat in markets where breast is preferred and still make profit.. Remember that production cycles from egg to meat is less than two months, somits very much a case of continually moving huge quantities of comodity type products, every day, every week and every month. The USA is very good at this. The EU is not too shabby at it either, but the industry is more fragmented.

4. I dont know if the EU imports US feedstuff, or the reasons if it does not.

5. Transport costs will be a factor, but not massively so. From memory its a few % points. Tarrifs may also apply ( its been a few years since I last looked at this, so these factors may have changed a bit) and that may explain why UK multiples have not embraced the product ( it was not due to bactericial water washing, as many EU processors also used this process until recent years) most likely it could simply be because the UK in particular is a breast meat user, and the USA already likes tomuse that cut itself, at a relative premium.

In my experience, quality is evident on both sides of the pond. It would also be fair to say the the UK and EU producers are not as efficient as their American counterparts in many cases. That does lead to higher costs over here ( or lower costs over there if you look at it that way) You have to keep in mind that all meat production is high value very low % margins. The old joke used to be that you would "kill for a penny a pound "( in weight)

Looking for some sort of blanket " its cheap cos they cheat and its dangerous and st etc" is simply wrong headed.

[Wayne E Edge]

Robertj21a said:

///ajd said:

It appears that many find great comfort in "never knowing" if it would have been better or worse.

Thing is that actually proves that you can't say the EU politicians are wrong, can you? By your own admissions "we'll never know".

So they could well be right, but we can claim "we'll never know". That's not really good enough for many.

Who cares anyway (apart from you just trying to rake up more problems) ?

We're leaving - get over it.

I wouldn't be too confident about that. When has anybody trusted what the troughers have said? They++ seem to take their word as the immutable word of honesty.

++Brexiteers on here.

Sorry about formatting. It seems to do the same thing with asterisks as Word does.

Edited by Wayne E Edge on Friday 28th July 23:36