Brexit discussion thread II

ancapailldorcha · 25-07-2017 09:30AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the European Union has primary authority in areas X, Y and Z it means that it has control over X, Y and Z. That's hardly misleading.

The UK wants this control. The conditions of single market membership are too much. That's a good reason to leave it.

A small portion of the 52%, hardly the whole country of nearly 65 million.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't see what additional benefits the EU adds apart from scale. As a major world economy and as a market of 60 million the UK has a lot of clout on its own. Negotiations should be quicker because you don't have to consider the particular needs of 27 other countries when negotiating.

Are you serious? The richest trading bloc in the world of over half a billion people. If your point were true, there wouldn't be 53 trade deals that the UK will now have to renegotiate.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Also it's worth bearing in mind that there's only so much progress that Liam Fox can make given that the European Union forbids negotiations. I'm thankful that there are initial discussions happening with Washington and I'm also thankful for the number of countries that want an agreement with the UK. Hopefully initial conversations can continue but it isn't honest to say firstly that it is Liam Fox's fault that the EU prohibit comprehensive trade talks and that he has made little progress as a result, or secondly to claim that we know how much progress has been made.

As far as I am aware, that only applies to signing trade deals. They could be discussed verbally beforehand.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I mentioned that China and the US are markets of £100bn to the UK in my last post. I mentioned that there are opportunities to expand this with a free trade agreement.

That's an opportunity. Unless you're claiming that it isn't an opportunity? [/QUOTE]

Have you forgotten TTIP? I've no idea where that figure has come from by the way? How does it stack up to the full access to the single market the UK currently benefits hugely from? What will Liam Fox concede to reap these benefits? The NHS? Allowing chlorinated chicken?

ancapailldorcha · 25-07-2017 10:26AM

Looks like people see the single market as being more important than stopping free movement:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/889473189016985603

blanch152 · 25-07-2017 10:57AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

You miss the point though. My objection is high level. It isn't so much individual policy of the European Union but the principle that this much control should be handed over to them.

I remember hearing a politician once say that you could never eat a principle. No point having high-level principles if the result impoverishes those you represent.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's easy to put your fingers in your ears and to pretend that Britain doesn't have a strong hand in the negotiations or that there aren't huge opportunities with the new flexibility that Britain will have.

Britain has already had to climb down and seek a transition period, during which it will remain under EU control and the ECJ. We are heading for a version of Brexit Lite which will inevitably lead the next generation to ask why aren't we in there making the rules which we are required to follow in order to prosper?

First Up · 25-07-2017 11:01AM

According to reports, Davis has flagged the idea that the UK will allow imports of chlorine washed chicken from the US as part of the price of a trade deal.

We'll see what aspects of the UK's deal are better than the EU-US trade terms. Or will it just be more chickens coming home to roost?

Jim2007 · 25-07-2017 02:39PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Firstly - I'd like to drop the tone and say I'm not blaming the EU. It's not their fault that it doesn't suit Britain to be a member or that they want to go in a different direction.

This is a bit like the leaves on the track... it was the wrong kind of trade! The fact remains, given the same set of circumstances UK industry has failed to produce a single trade surplus!

solodeogloria wrote: »

Secondly - it isn't true to say that the UK hasn't been delivering because it happens to trade a lot in services. A lot of manufacturers trade more with the rest of the world than with the EU anyway. This is why JCB and Dyson were pro-Brexit.

But we are talking about trade deals and the ability or lack there of of UK companies. As for JCB and Dyson there are two questions, first given their position why have they failed to build a substantial market in Europe? The second question is given that both companies have substantial manufacturing facilities out side the UK/EU, if there are FTA agreements with the countries where they are located where do you think they will expand low cost countries or the UK?????

Water John · 25-07-2017 03:39PM

I really wonder if this particular Fox will himself eat the chlorinated chicken.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/25/brussels-attacks-liam-foxs-ignorant-remarks-chlorinated-chicken-eu-trade-deal-us

listermint · 25-07-2017 03:42PM

Sure Dyson hated the EU because he wanted to scrap energy rating labels on his cleaners and he lost.

Its nothing more than selfish thinking and a bid to get his own back for him feeling slighted.

I can't believe you could hold his opinion up as some validation. His case wasn't sensible in the first place. He wanted Dyson to be treated as special.

Nody · 25-07-2017 03:48PM

Water John wrote: »

I really wonder if this particular Fox will himself eat the chlorinated chicken.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/25/brussels-attacks-liam-foxs-ignorant-remarks-chlorinated-chicken-eu-trade-deal-us

Such good standards that their FDA got sued and won by an American producer who had salmonella infected chicken with the motivation "It's not an issue if people cook it properly" as reason to why FDA was not to ban them selling it to consumers. Sounds like proper standards UK would want to follow; no possible issues from this at all...

Professor Moriarty · 25-07-2017 04:08PM

Nody wrote: »

Such good standards that their FDA got sued and won by an American producer who had salmonella infected chicken with the motivation "It's not an issue if people cook it properly" as reason to why FDA was not to ban them selling it to consumers. Sounds like proper standards UK would want to follow; no possible issues from this at all...

John Gummer, then a Tory agriculture minister, fed his four year old daughter a hamburger on television to disprove the idea that humans could contract CJD.

Capt'n Midnight · 25-07-2017 07:21PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Last post for today. I was going to call it earlier but I got a free coffee and pastry from Pret on the way to work which cheered me up

Enjoy it while it lasts.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/pret-a-manger-brexit-hr-director-andrea-wareham-brexit-eu-nationals-65-per-cent-cafe-employeeseu-a7620111.html

Pret a Manger HR director warns MPs over Brexit as 65% of the cafe chain's employees are EU nationals

Just one in 50 of the applicants for a job at the high street chain is British

Sam Russell · 25-07-2017 07:58PM

Nody wrote: »

Such good standards that their FDA got sued and won by an American producer who had salmonella infected chicken with the motivation "It's not an issue if people cook it properly" as reason to why FDA was not to ban them selling it to consumers. Sounds like proper standards UK would want to follow; no possible issues from this at all...

see post #663

That was Foster Foods that had an ongoing infection of Salmonella in their chickens for 15 months. They sued the FDA to overturn a ban and won on the grounds that properly cooked chicken kills the bacteria. They were the sixth largest producer of chicken in the US and the largest in Ca.

American food producers fight hard to have weak to no standards in food production hygiene so they can keep prices (to them) low.

Capt'n Midnight · 25-07-2017 10:44PM

Newsnight right now

US want the UK to concede over
Chlorinated chicken ( the EU stance is that abattoirs should be clean in the first place )
Hormone boosted beef (remember foot and mouth wiped out the reputation of UK beef)
Whisky - less than 3 years old ( guess what is the #1 UK food export ? )
GM corn restrictions

Rolls Royce subsidies. For wide bodied jets the alternatives are two US companies who get a lot of US military contracts - this is one of the UK's niche areas

Professor Moriarty · 25-07-2017 10:47PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Newsnight right now

US want the UK to concede over
Chlorinated chicken ( the EU stance is that abattoirs should be clean in the first place )
Hormone boosted beef (remember foot and mouth wiped out the reputation of UK beef)
Whisky - less than 3 years old ( guess what is the #1 UK food export ? )
GM corn restrictions

Rolls Royce subsidies. For wide bodied jets the alternatives are two US companies who get a lot of US military contracts - this is one of the UK's niche areas

What happened to the special relationship?

Sam Russell · 25-07-2017 10:52PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What happened to the special relationship?

That is the special relationship.

US: Jump!

UK: How high, Sir?

Capt'n Midnight · 25-07-2017 11:18PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What happened to the special relationship?

That ended on the 15th of July 1946. (December 1942 if you date it by when the US first stopped reciprocating information on atomic bomb development)

John Maynard Keynes was sent by the United Kingdom to the United States and Canada to obtain more funds. British politicians expected that in view of the United Kingdom's contribution to the war effort, especially for the lives lost before the United States entered the fight in 1941, America would offer favorable terms. Instead of a grant or a gift, however, Keynes was offered a loan on favorable terms.
...

The loan was made subject to conditions, the most damaging of which was the convertibility of sterling
...
the rapid loss of dollar reserves also highlighted the weakness of sterling, which was duly devalued in 1949 from $4.02 to $2.80.

People will tell you it was a good deal based on the interest rate. But the devaluing of sterling increased it massively and the inflation that reduced the effective interest rate happened later. The loan was fully paid off in 2006.

Professor Moriarty · 25-07-2017 11:31PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

That ended on the 15th of July 1946. (December 1942 if you date it by when the US first stopped reciprocating information on atomic bomb development)

People will tell you it was a good deal based on the interest rate. But the devaluing of sterling increased it massively and the inflation that reduced the effective interest rate happened later. The loan was fully paid off in 2006.

That told me! You learn something new everyday.

oppenheimer1 · 26-07-2017 12:12AM

Just from reading the debate btl in the UK papers on both sides of the divide one cannot help but feel that it had echos of the sentiment in Ireland in and around 2007. While here there was obviously no referendum to trigger the crisis the fallout is remarkably similar.

The general feeling you get is of dark economic clouds on the horizon, but like Bertie there is a hard line cohort unable to face reality and jumps on any half positive news as evidence of the."best had yet to come". Meanwhile, in the real world, sterling (effectively the "share price" of the economy) has weakened considerably and real incomes are falling.

Crunch time for the UK will be in October, if, as I suspect, the EU refuses to progress the talks to the future relationship. If I were a betting man, I'd bet on a run on sterling around then.

Of course, the other similarity is the schadenfreude from the Tory press to Ireland. This time it's reversed

solodeogloria · 26-07-2017 06:58AM

Good morning!

I'm sticking to one reply to the thread a day now. I think I serve a useful purpose in providing some balance to the thread, so I will keep posting for now, but in a more limited fashion.

Peregrinus wrote: »

What is false is that the UK "trades more with the rest of the world". As noted, 50% of the UK's exports are to the single market (and, for the record, rather more than 50% of its imports are from the single market). When you add in trade with the rest of the world conducted under EU-third country FTAs the signficance of EU membership, and therefore of Brexit, to the UK's trade is even greater.

This isn't false. My point is that the UK trades more with other countries than with the European Union. I meant this in terms of exports.

My point was specifically about what trade the UK does with the European Union.

According to Full Fact - 44% of the UK's exports in goods and services went to other EU countries. £240 billion out of £550bn in 2016.

The source I was using earlier was the Office of National Statistics for 2015. According to these figures, the UK exported £230bn to the European Union, £27.4bn to EFTA, and £259.9bn to the rest of the world. Even if I aggregate EFTA and the EU together, we get more exports to the rest of the world.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A small portion of the 52%, hardly the whole country of nearly 65 million.

I'm one of the 48% and I'm right behind the Government on the major priorities of Brexit.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Are you serious? The richest trading bloc in the world of over half a billion people. If your point were true, there wouldn't be 53 trade deals that the UK will now have to renegotiate.

I am serious when I say that a G7 country with a population of 65 million people will have negotiating clout of it's own yes. Canada seems to be able to do it without handing it's hat to other countries and by sticking to its own guns on things such as arbitration. There is no reason why Britain will not be able to do so.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As far as I am aware, that only applies to signing trade deals. They could be discussed verbally beforehand.

No. Trade negotiations are prohibited by the EU. There's some obscure distinction between discussion and negotiation. The EU doesn't seem to give a lot of detail on that line, but they do prohibit negotiations.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's an opportunity. Unless you're claiming that it isn't an opportunity?

You also asked about where I got the China and the US figures from. Again, the figures from the Office of National Statistics on UK exports in 2015. You can drill down into the rest of the world chart to see how much other countries contribute.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Have you forgotten TTIP? I've no idea where that figure has come from by the way? How does it stack up to the full access to the single market the UK currently benefits hugely from? What will Liam Fox concede to reap these benefits? The NHS? Allowing chlorinated chicken?

I haven't forgotten TTIP. It was a deal that the EU didn't want to pursue. It isn't and it wasn't some kind of scary bogeyman though.

A few points:
1) The UK is clear that it wants a good deal with the EU. So when we talk of a deal with the US we aren't talking about an either or scenario. The priority of the government is to maintain strong links with the EU while pursuing new trade agreements elsewhere. It isn't EU vs everything or everyone else. It's both.

2) Single market membership is being rejected because the terms are too restrictive. The UK wants the freedom to be able to forge new trade deals with countries like America. The EU prohibits this.

3) The US is one of the UK's biggest trading partners. In fact it is the biggest single country with which the UK trades with about £96bn in trade every year. Bear in mind that the EU as a whole is £230bn. A more favourable trading relationship with the US could allow more British goods to reach the US and therefore bring more prosperity to Britain.

4) Most of Britain's exports as I've demonstrated - are with countries outside of the European Union, that percentage has also grown year on year. As the world has changed, it also makes sense that Britain should change to capitalise on those opportunities.

5) What Liam Fox will or won't concede to finalise US trade talks is a matter for discussion. However - I think that the chlorinated chicken thing is another bogeyman that is being erected. I think instead of being overly protectionist that consumers should be able to decide for themselves. If it means a huge expansion in British exports to the US, I'm all for being less protectionist in that regard. The stuff about the NHS is also bogeyman stuff. The NHS already uses private contracts in lots of areas. As long as the NHS is free at the point of delivery I see no harm in allowing American firms to compete for already existing contracts in the health service.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First Up · 26-07-2017 07:36AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

US want the UK to concede over Chlorinated chicken ( the EU stance is that abattoirs should be clean in the first place ) Hormone boosted beef (remember foot and mouth wiped out the reputation of UK beef)

No more chicken curries for me in the UK but more importantly, if the UK lowers food standards it guarantees border inspections.

ancapailldorcha · 26-07-2017 07:50AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm one of the 48% and I'm right behind the Government on the major priorities of Brexit.

And? Every time you say that people voted for sovereignty or immigration control or whatever, you forget that you're describing minorities. More people voted to remain than any individual segment of the leave vote.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I am serious when I say that a G7 country with a population of 65 million people will have negotiating clout of it's own yes. Canada seems to be able to do it without handing it's hat to other countries and by sticking to its own guns on things such as arbitration. There is no reason why Britain will not be able to do so.

You're back to the strawmen. Nobody said that there would be no clout whatsoever. CETA took 7 years to negotiate and does not include services.

solodeogloria wrote: »

No. Trade negotiations are prohibited by the EU. There's some obscure distinction between discussion and negotiation. The EU doesn't seem to give a lot of detail on that line, but they do prohibit negotiations.

So why has Liam Fox been dispatched to various countries then?

solodeogloria wrote: »

You also asked about where I got the China and the US figures from. Again, the figures from the Office of National Statistics on UK exports in 2015. You can drill down into the rest of the world chart to see how much other countries contribute.

And trade with the EU (and EFTA) is worth more than the rest of the world combined.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I haven't forgotten TTIP. It was a deal that the EU didn't want to pursue. It isn't and it wasn't some kind of scary bogeyman though.

The EU was pressured into it by protests. Odd that it seems to be more responsive than Westminster.

solodeogloria wrote: »

A few points:
1) The UK is clear that it wants a good deal with the EU. So when we talk of a deal with the US we aren't talking about an either or scenario. The priority of the government is to maintain strong links with the EU while pursuing new trade agreements elsewhere. It isn't EU vs everything or everyone else. It's both.

Except that we are. As I posted before, UK public opinion is favouring single market membership now which entails both the customs union and the ECJ. Without the customs union, many companies will leave as their "Just-in-time" manufacturing model is dependent on the customs union.

solodeogloria wrote: »

2) Single market membership is being rejected because the terms are too restrictive. The UK wants the freedom to be able to forge new trade deals with countries like America. The EU prohibits this.

It isn't. See above.

solodeogloria wrote: »

3) The US is one of the UK's biggest trading partners. In fact it is the biggest single country with which the UK trades with about £96bn in trade every year. Bear in mind that the EU as a whole is £230bn. A more favourable trading relationship with the US could allow more British goods to reach the US and therefore bring more prosperity to Britain.

IS. Presently, as in not prevented by EU membership. What would the UK have to give up to sign such a deal. The NHS? Food standards?

solodeogloria wrote: »

4) Most of Britain's exports as I've demonstrated - are with countries outside of the European Union, that percentage has also grown year on year. As the world has changed, it also makes sense that Britain should change to capitalise on those opportunities.

The EU counts for a disproportionally high amount of that trade. You have to take literally every other country on Earth to make it a minority.

solodeogloria wrote: »

5) What Liam Fox will or won't concede to finalise US trade talks is a matter for discussion. However - I think that the chlorinated chicken thing is another bogeyman that is being erected. I think instead of being overly protectionist that consumers should be able to decide for themselves. If it means a huge expansion in British exports to the US, I'm all for being less protectionist in that regard. The stuff about the NHS is also bogeyman stuff. The NHS already uses private contracts in lots of areas. As long as the NHS is free at the point of delivery I see no harm in allowing American firms to compete for already existing contracts in the health service.

Sorry but that's a crock when you see the amount of working people stuck in poverty because of high rents and low wages. My point isn't US companies running NHS services, it's that they'll want much great access to win contracts for those service. We simply don't know because this deal will be conducted in secret with no referendum from the public.

Peregrinus · 26-07-2017 07:52AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

. . . What Liam Fox will or won't concede to finalise US trade talks is a matter for discussion. However - I think that the chlorinated chicken thing is another bogeyman that is being erected. I think instead of being overly protectionist that consumers should be able to decide for themselves. If it means a huge expansion in British exports to the US, I'm all for being less protectionist in that regard. The stuff about the NHS is also bogeyman stuff. The NHS already uses private contracts in lots of areas. As long as the NHS is free at the point of delivery I see no harm in allowing American firms to compete for already existing contracts in the health service.

First Up wrote: »

No more chicken curries for me in the UK but more importantly, if the UK lowers food standards it guarantees border inspections.

Just to be clear; the US isn't demanding that the UK start chlorine-washing its own chickens; just that it not exclude imports of chlorine-washed chicken.

Which means, solo, this isn't about a "huge expansion" of UK imports to to the US; it's about an expansion of US exports of chicken to the UK. Almost certainly the US will be pressing the UK not to require that chlorine-washed chicken be labelled as such, which means that UK consumers won't, in practice, find it easy to choose between chlorine-washed and unchlorinated chicken. But the downside is not just to UK consumers; it's also to UK chicken producers, who will face competition from cheap American imported chicken meat, and who may not be able to compete on quality if the consumer can't distinguish between chlorine-treated and chlorine-untreated meat.

But it also means, FirstUp, that there won't necessarily have to be border inspections of meat imported from the UK to the EU. That only arises if UK law permits UK-produced chicken meat to be chlorine-washed.

The other aspect to this - and this has big traction in the UK - is animal welfare. The point about chlorine-washing is that it kills E. coli, salmonella and suchlike. Which means it's not a problem for producers if the birds are infected with these disease while alive; the meat can be cleaned after slaughter. Which make it possible - and economically advantageous - to keep the birds in conditions favourable to the spread of these diseases. Basically, you are setting up economic incentives for producers to keep sheds crammed with sick chickens living in their own filth. If you have spacious, clean production sheds, you don't need to chlorine-wash the meat.

First Up · 26-07-2017 07:55AM

Peregrinus wrote:

But it also means, FirstUp, that there won't necessarily have to be border inspections of meat imported from the UK to the EU. That only arises if UK law permits UK-produced chicken meat to be chlorine-washed.

Or if the UK imports chlorine washed chicken and re-exports it.

Peregrinus · 26-07-2017 08:09AM

First Up wrote: »

Or if the UK imports chlorine washed chicken and re-exports it.

What you'd need is a certification-system whereby UK-produced meat could be identified, and wouldn't need inspection. Onerous, but not so onerous as having to have the meat inspected. So if the US does get its way on this in the UK/US trade deal, and the UK holds the line on not allowing chlorine-washing in UK chicken production, expect the UK to introduce a certification system for UK chicken producers.

Note, though, that the chicken-meat industry's stand is very strongly (a) we don't want chlorine-washed chicken to be allowed into the UK, but (b) if it is allowed in, we want to be allowed to do it to. Yes, it would make it impossible to export chicken meat to the EU, but the truth is that they don't export a lot of chicken meat to the EU (or anywhere else); the UK is a substantial net importer of poulty meat and poultry meat products.

First Up · 26-07-2017 08:30AM

Peregrinus wrote:

Note, though, that the chicken-meat industry's stand is very strongly (a) we don't want chlorine-washed chicken to be allowed into the UK, but (b) if it is allowed in, we want to be allowed to do it to. Yes, it would make it impossible to export chicken meat to the EU, but the truth is that they don't export a lot of chicken meat to the EU (or anywhere else); the UK is a substantial net importer of poulty meat and poultry meat products.

We get chicken from China via UK importers. Not so much in retail but plenty in the catering trade.

swampgas · 26-07-2017 09:10AM

A rather unpopular opinion piece (judging by the comments) on some of the psychological factors affecting Brexit.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/26/dunkirk-brexit-retreat-europe-britain-eec

I thought this comment was accurate though, and (IMO) it reflects the way mainland Europe sees the history of WW2 through a very different prism to the UK. The EU project is far more than a trading area. It was from its inception a political project, something that Brexit supporters seem to forget over and over again.

Everyone who tries to link Dunkirk and Brexit misses the really vital point. Defeat by the Nazis meant, for us, a heroic defeat followed by a successful, and equally heroic, defence of our country. It wasn't that bad, in fact it was good enough to make a film out of (or two).

For the rest of Europe defeat by Hitler meant occupation, real national humiliation, ethnic cleansing and collaboration in genocide. It was so bad it left everyone, Left or Right, saying 'Never again'. The French won't make a heroic film about 1940, there is no Greek version of Allo Allo, and no Polish Dad's Army. For them the Second World War is no triumphant tale, and certainly no joke.

Zubeneschamali · 26-07-2017 09:18AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it also means, FirstUp, that there won't necessarily have to be border inspections of meat imported from the UK to the EU. That only arises if UK law permits UK-produced chicken meat to be chlorine-washed.

Or if chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-stuffed beef from the US makes it into British produced foods, which is inevitable if it is allowed in at all. Think of where frozen mince ended up in the food chain back when burgers were a scare story in, what 2013 was it?

And you can guarantee that every meat producer in the EU will call for bans and inspections of all UK food products if US meat is allowed in, simply out of protectionism.

Zubeneschamali · 26-07-2017 09:21AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

(b) if it is allowed in, we want to be allowed to do it to.

Yep - a race to the bottom as standards are loosened.

Roughly the same as what will happen to workers rights and basic human rights once May gets out from under the European courts. In the name of "competitiveness" and "security", of course.

swampgas · 26-07-2017 09:44AM

More division in the cabinet - Gove claims accepting chlorinated chicken would be a deal breaker, contradicting Fox:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/26/uk-us-trade-deal-chlorinated-chicken-michael-gove-liam-fox

murphaph · 26-07-2017 09:55AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it also means, FirstUp, that there won't necessarily have to be border inspections of meat imported from the UK to the EU. That only arises if UK law permits UK-produced chicken meat to be chlorine-washed.

But what's to stop a Northern Irish food firm importing chlorine washed chicken, making curries out of it and exporting those south of the border?

Customs checks are definitely coming IMO, and not just because of potential lower food standards.

I just hope our dear government has a contingency plan to rapidly expand capacity at our southern ports. We may need urgent assistance from our EU partners also to make sure we can still ship product directly to France as I believe there will be chaos at British ports and again at EU ports receiving ferries from the UK. The big problem will be in sourcing ferries I suspect.

Stupid Brexit.

Professor Moriarty · 26-07-2017 10:02AM

murphaph wrote: »

But what's to stop a Northern Irish food firm importing chlorine washed chicken, making curries out of it and exporting those south of the border?

Customs checks are definitely coming IMO, and not just because of potential lower food standards.

I just hope our dear government has a contingency plan to rapidly expand capacity at our southern ports. We may need urgent assistance from our EU partners also to make sure we can still ship product directly to France as I believe there will be chaos at British ports and again at EU ports receiving ferries from the UK. The big problem will be in sourcing ferries I suspect.

Stupid Brexit.

Pascal Lamy (former head of WTO) consistently emphasises that Britain's problem will be regulations not tariffs.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments