Brexit discussion thread II

Good read from Gina Miller on the murky undercurrents beneath Brexit:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/28/brexit-layers-allegations-opaque-funding-brexiters

solodeogloria wrote: »

So chlorine washing itself isn't an issue. In respect to animal welfare, Britain banned battery farming before others in the EU, and I'm sure it will be a matter of discussion in terms of how food is imported from other countries. I don't know why people are prematurely getting themselves anxious about a trading arrangement that has yet to be negotiated.

I see you have avoided the issue by stating what has happened in the past and not about what could happen in the future. Its good that the UK has been at the forefront for animal welfare in the past, but if they allow chlorinated chicken to be imported to the UK it means nothing to the now.

The issue with washing chicken in a chlorine wash is not about the chlorine wash itself but about the principle. Are you happy to know that the food that you will eat will have standards set at such a low level that the carcasses will need to be washed before they are safe for consumption?

Now granted the EU position may be precautionary and not based on actual evidence that washing a chicken in chlorine is unsafe, but I will take the safer approach when it comes to both the food we consume and animal welfare.

Another point, I don't know how many US products you can name that they produce that is wanted all over the world.

solodeogloria wrote: »

This article contains precious little detail about what the issues were.



From what you've cited we don't have much a clue about why the American boogeyman was so scary. If there was a detailed step by step analysis about what was wrong with TTIP apart from hyperbole about chlorine washed chicken I'd be pretty interested to read it.

The whole deal seems to have been done in a way too much secrecy. Why would you keep the documents hidden away and have to sign a NDA if you want to look at the documents related the deal? We also know that the US corporations would be able to challenge any new rules that the EU may put in to protect their consumers and that they would be able to sue EU governments if their profits would suffer due to these rules.

That is in the quote I posted, I am not sure if you read it or not. I find that a little disturbing that companies in the US could sue Germany if the EU has rules that protect their consumers but having those rules means they make less profits.

Under a proposal pushed by the EU our ability to make rules to protect society, health or the environment will be subjected to a unique new power for big business to challenge all rules before they are even in place – and to sue governments in a private justice system if any rules affect their profits.

Enzokk wrote: »

I see you have avoided the issue by stating what has happened in the past and not about what could happen in the future. Its good that the UK has been at the forefront for animal welfare in the past, but if they allow chlorinated chicken to be imported to the UK it means nothing to the now.

The issue with washing chicken in a chlorine wash is not about the chlorine wash itself but about the principle. Are you happy to know that the food that you will eat will have standards set at such a low level that the carcasses will need to be washed before they are safe for consumption?

Now granted the EU position may be precautionary and not based on actual evidence that washing a chicken in chlorine is unsafe, but I will take the safer approach when it comes to both the food we consume and animal welfare.

There appears to be an assumption here that EU animal welfare standards are higher than those which the UK would adopt left to it's own devices. I'm not sure that is factually correct, and I will offer one important example which touches Ireland in particular.

The UK has come close - and at some points even succeeded temporarily - in banning the export of live animals on welfare grounds, pursuant to a debate which has gone on since after the second world war.

It has been frustrated in this by EU law, and I think I am right in saying a temporary high court ban in the UK was overturned using EU law.

Ireland - by contrast - is a huge proponent of live animal exports, particularly recently through Europe to markets like Algeria and Turkey which would be the focus of a lot of concern in terms of welfare standards at both reception and slaughter. There is considerable evidence that the EU protections in these countries are not being upheld.

I will confess to being conflicted here as I have from time to time sold calves for export. I've changed my farming system to prevent that in the future but I have to say that puts me in a tiny minority, and I well understand my fellow farmers dependence on the live trade.

I don't think it is fair though - on the evidence - to suggest that UK animal welfare standards would be lower, given the chance, than our own or those imposed by the EU. The facts in this area speak for themselves.

kowtow wrote: »

I don't think it is fair though - on the evidence - to suggest that UK animal welfare standards would be lower, given the chance, than our own or those imposed by the EU. The facts in this area speak for themselves.

I agree with the general premise of your view, but I'm not optimistic that this sort of Brexit under this particular set of chancers can work out well for the vast majority.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/18/brexit-british-business-leaders-legatum-eu

This lot have been cropping up. If they're the ones leading the Tory descent into wholesale delusion, the agricultural sector is going to be pressured out of existence. That won't help anyone, nor will what it will do to regulation in the sector before it collapses.

I don't know enough about the Legatum lot yet to decide if this is out of proportion or not. It's looks now like it isn't*, these guys are being brought in to meet with business leaders. That it is being very plausibly entertained and given influence is a bad sign for anything protecting farmers and their livestock.

It's not that Britain is inherently more likely to tolerate cruelty to animals or poor legislation regarding basic food and goods safety, it's more that does anyone really trust that power to this lot once they have the unique power to change what rules they like without oversight? Specifically without oversight, but they promise not to do anything dangerous with it. (There will be full debates on certain sectors that will need to be built from scratch, so that's some limit, but there's a lot of damage to do with a lack of forethought in the rest of the legal system.) And this when their regulatory systems come under intense foreign pressure from other governments where it is one of the few cards they can play to get trade deals. There will also be intense internal pressure from domestic (and multinational) industries influencing decisions about what to keep and what to change. That is an absolute minefield at the best of times and May's government are anything but the best of times. That they appear to be listening to a group run by a disaster capitalist who advocate feeding the agricultural sector to services is..not a good sign either.

*Despite a name out of a Dan Brown novel.

Nody;105439284
Well as Peregrinus said earlier there's a difference between immigration border (people can cross free) and trade going over the border. There are two possibilities with a third being a fudged line:

1) EU gives UK full access to the CU in a FTA and in essence let UK eat the cake and keep it by giving them full access at zero cost to the market and compromising the four freedoms while trusting UK to follow all the rules without oversight.

2) NI becomes a special region in UK with it's own rules which in practice puts the border in the sea and forces all imports from UK to NI to comply with EU requirements.

3) Some hybrid of 1 & 2 in specific areas with EU oversight for NI production for example and allow the products to be shipped in as if they were in the EU CU but imports from UK would not be allowed. Main problem obviously being remarking UK imports as NI etc.
Thanks, no.1 seems unlikely in my view considering the way the negotiations have been going so far from the EU side, No.2 sounds like there's a custom border between the GB and NI (I appreciate not technically the same as an immigration border - but tell Sammy Wilson that )

kowtow wrote: »

There appears to be an assumption here that EU animal welfare standards are higher than those which the UK would adopt left to it's own devices. I'm not sure that is factually correct, and I will offer one important example which touches Ireland in particular.

The UK has come close - and at some points even succeeded temporarily - in banning the export of live animals on welfare grounds, pursuant to a debate which has gone on since after the second world war.

It has been frustrated in this by EU law, and I think I am right in saying a temporary high court ban in the UK was overturned using EU law.

Ireland - by contrast - is a huge proponent of live animal exports, particularly recently through Europe to markets like Algeria and Turkey which would be the focus of a lot of concern in terms of welfare standards at both reception and slaughter. There is considerable evidence that the EU protections in these countries are not being upheld.

I will confess to being conflicted here as I have from time to time sold calves for export. I've changed my farming system to prevent that in the future but I have to say that puts me in a tiny minority, and I well understand my fellow farmers dependence on the live trade.

I don't think it is fair though - on the evidence - to suggest that UK animal welfare standards would be lower, given the chance, than our own or those imposed by the EU. The facts in this area speak for themselves.

I am not saying the UK will on the day after Brexit all of a sudden allow welfare standards to drop. But if the US insists on allowing among others chlorinated chicken to be exported to the UK it will mean that UK suppliers will be on the back foot on costs against the imports. Now we can only speculate on what might happen, but if the choice is animal welfare and a lost sector in the UK I think I know which way it is likely to go.

So my contention is not that they will lower standards from day one, but if they hope for a trade deal with the US they may have to lower standards after a few years to help their farmers stay in business.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Big news as Donald Tusk says that the EU will reject the UK's brexit demands if Ireland aren't happy with the border issue.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-donald-tusk-ireland-uk-offer-eu-britain-leo-varadkar-a8087556.html

Daft but hilarious. They really did not think it all through.

On the day of the Brexit vote I remember being on this forum and arguing alot with so many Irish keyboard troopers who were so anti EU.
I wonder what happened to those guys ...I never hear from them now on here


I also remember pointing out the NI would be the biggest stumbling block to Brexit and it could be detrimental to Ireland as a whole. I now think that maybe Brexit could be the biggest opportunity for the island of Ireland...If ireland could be deemed a special case imagine the industry and commenrce that could relocate to the border areas ...
Special flow between UK and Europe zone

If those idiots in the DUP could just wake up and smell the coffee ( and they are idiots the way they are going on...did that woman leader not sign away millions in NI taxpayers money ?- where do they get these people ? )
Ni has the opportunity to attract so many companies if it a special trading zone

As an aside to an earlier post people in the UK prefer animals to people hence the higher standards on animal welfare

flaneur wrote: »

The reality of importing food, particularly meats form far flung destinations is not going to be very palatable in the UK consumer market.

The issues you'll have more likelihood of the UK wanting to reduce standards on are more likely to be around things like financial services and perhaps environmental standards for industry or energy or even things like the waste water directive which they (and Ireland) are in very serious breech of.

I think for food and farming it could in a sense go either way. The UK has actually developed quite a strong local (and sometimes organic) food ethic in recent years and that will thrive after Brexit. Michael Gove has taken a surprisingly new age view of agriculture, something which not all of his colleagues and not all farmers will necessarily be happy with. In his way he is actually quite a radical and intelligent man, but he's not a very political one, which will limit his chances of surviving.

It's difficult to judge financial services regulatory standards qualitatively - regulation tends to have attendant risks just as non-regulation does, the real problems occur when people rely on regulation and it turns out not to have protected them in the way they expected. Certainly the UK approach will not be the same as that of the EU, sans passporting etc.

On the question of corporate influence and more specifically Legatum, I don't give much credibility to the idea that the 'Brexiteers' are in any sense puppets, no matter who funded what.

I know - or at least knew, many years ago - one or two of them fairly well and if anything they are too intelligent and/or not pragmatic and political enough to do well in a 'normal' political environment. In a sense that is one of the reasons for the current Tory mayhem - the referendum led to an unlikely coalition of Ministers who lack any of the usual shared ambition for power - they are, in some part, there for a single issue. Strong principles and intelligence will only get you so far in Government - political nous and low cunning is needed, not only in Brussels but also in dealing with the Civil Service at home. Sir Humphrey is, and always has been, a great fan of the EU.

David Davis, I think, has some claim as a talented negotiator in the past but for one reason or another is long past his prime.

I generally admire politicians who are more principled than practiced, I think quite a big section of the UK electorate probably does as well - but that doesn't stop their opponents - whether in Westminster or in Brussels - making them look like idiots at every opportunity.

Samaris wrote: »

I agree with the general premise of your view, but I'm not optimistic that this sort of Brexit under this particular set of chancers can work out well for the vast majority.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/18/brexit-british-business-leaders-legatum-eu

This lot have been cropping up. If they're the ones leading the Tory descent into wholesale delusion, the agricultural sector is going to be pressured out of existence. That won't help anyone, nor will what it will do to regulation in the sector before it collapses.

I don't know enough about the Legatum lot yet to decide if this is out of proportion or not. It's looks now like it isn't*, these guys are being brought in to meet with business leaders. That it is being very plausibly entertained and given influence is a bad sign for anything protecting farmers and their livestock.

Makes me think of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine (an amazing book, very highly reccomended). It basically holds that government work with big business to take advantage of a stupified populace after shocking events (9/11, Hurricane Katrina etc.). This can be through garnering support for war, pushing legislation, or making land grabs and conducting dodgy deals.

Aegir wrote: »

How do the Scots and the Welsh feel about this?

They are irrelevant! Hahaha

This is an informal place.

You don't need to start your posts with "good evening" nor sign off with your username.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This is an informal place.

You don't need to start your posts with "good evening" nor sign off with your username.

Makes it really hard to navigate this thread on a phone. All your posts have a tendency to look the same and it's confusing on a small screen. I wish you would do us a favour and stop Solo. So many have asked at this stage.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

This doesn't seem to be exactly accurate.

What MP's voted against was an inclusion of a clause saying that animals are sentient beings into the EU Withdrawal Bill.

Domestic animals are covered under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and all EU standards would be converted into UK law under the process that the EU Withdrawal Bill provides for.

I agree by the by that the EU Withdrawal Bill is a bill regarding the process of leaving the European Union and providing for the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. It isn't a bill for all and sundry to be included in. There's other legislation for that.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

What are you on about?