Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

An Claidheamh wrote: »

They'll bottle it, if they wanted to leave with no deal they would have done it by now.

All talk

That said, if Varadkar is not prepared for a referendum on Irish unity, he should step down and allow someone who will.

We ought to be prepared for that as well, yet the Irish media won't talk about it

What are you talking about? Theres no point in talking about having a referendum until a border poll has been announced, doing anything prior to a border poll will just inflame tensions further and is ultimately pointless.

20silkcut wrote: »

Google Brazilian beef traceability for yourself .
It’s all there.

The deal clearly states that it will allow 100,000 tonnes of this beef to be sold in the EU. That’s not a claim it’s a fact.

Can you confirm there is nothing within the agreement about new traceability requirements though?

20silkcut wrote: »

Google Brazilian beef traceability for yourself .
It’s all there.

The deal clearly states that it will allow 100,000 tonnes of this beef to be sold in the EU. That’s not a claim it’s a fact.

Yes, but it doesn't say that it's allowed to be sold whether or not it complies with EU beef standards. Of course, it doesn't allow that.

I take the point you make about traceability. But, remember, traceability isn't about protecting the consumer; it's largely for the benefit of producers. It's about locating problems in the beef production chain so that (a) producers who aren't at fault aren't penalised, and (b) problems can be tackled and eliminated.

If, as you say, in some areas of Brazil farm boundaries are non-existent, then traceability to an individual farm would be pointless at best; misleading at worst. Would the EU ban beef from an entire country, or a province, or a particular plant, if they couldn't identify the farm at fault? Of course they would; they have done that in the past. Frequently. They don't wait for even "1 or 2 deaths" either.

And this wouldn't "jeopardise the entire FTA", since there is no provision in the FTA which allows the import of substandard beef, so such a measure would not breach the FTA. While it might obviously piss off the farmers affected by the ban, particularly those who consider that they themselves are not responsible for the problem, it would please other farmers within the Mercosur area, since (unless affected by a similar ban due to problems in the production chain of which they are part) they would remain free to sell to the EU, and the quota would be available to them.

These issues arise with or without the Mercosur trade deal. The EU is not self-sufficient in beef, and the excess of consumption over production is projected to grow. So there will be more and more imports, if not from Mercosur countries then from non-Mercosur countries. The quality standards, and the challenge of enforcing them, arise in either case. Arguably, the security of having a quota for export to the EU gives the Mercosur beef producers an incentive to invest in quality assurance systems so that they can be confident of being able to take advantage of the quota.

lawred2 wrote: »

the beef that's already being imported is already not subject to such traceability

The EU would beg to differ: from page 21 of this 2015 report -

The trend reversed in 2008, when the economic crisis started and when the Brazilian beef imports dropped19. Per capita consumption fell by 7% in the EU-28 and by 12% in the EU-15 in ...

19 This fall in Brazilian beef imports is due to the reinforcement of the European requirements in terms of traceability. When the EU imposed these requirements on Brazil; only 412 Brazilian cattle farms were deemed eligible to sell to the EU, compared to around 10,000 prior to these requirements being introduced.

Although this "beef scandal" is of tenuous relevance to the immediacy of a no-deal Brexit, it shows how fragile the belief in, and understanding of, the EU project is even in Ireland. This is the Irish (and French) version of the Brexiteers expecting the EU to blink first and cave in at the last minute. Our farmers are utterly convinced that the EU is going to throw them under the bus - or has already done so - completely ignoring the enormous efforts by the EU's agricultural division to protect their business and create new opportunities for their product.

In that sense, the EU still hasn't learnt enough lessons from Brexit: these new trade deals should have been accompanied - or even preceded - by more information explaining why EU rules apply to everyone, regardless of whether they live in northern Europe or South America.

And one more before I go:
https://www.agriland.co.uk/farming-news/brazilian-producers-race-to-ramp-up-traceability-and-sustainability-as-brexit-nears/

There is no legal requirement in Brazil to register calf births and many animals move between herds, as in farms surrounding the rainforest, where there are no firm boundaries between farms.
...
Hornemann explained that a growing number of farmers looking to supply fresh beef for export are beginning to record births.

Once again: give someone an incentive to make money from a premium market (e.g. the EU), and they'll soon get their act together.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but it doesn't say that it's allowed to be sold whether or not it complies with EU beef standards. Of course, it doesn't allow that.

I take the point you make about traceability. But, remember, traceability isn't about protecting the consumer; it's largely for the benefit of producers. It's about locating problems in the beef production chain so that (a) producers who aren't at fault aren't penalised, and (b) problems can be tackled and eliminated.

If, as you say, in some areas of Brazil farm boundaries are non-existent, then traceability to an individual farm would be pointless at best; misleading at worst. Would the EU ban beef from an entire country, or a province, or a particular plant, if they couldn't identify the farm at fault? Of course they would; they have done that in the past. Frequently. They don't wait for even "1 or 2 deaths" either.

And this wouldn't "jeopardise the entire FTA", since there is no provision in the FTA which allows the import of substandard beef, so such a measure would not breach the FTA. While it might obviously piss off the farmers affected by the ban, particularly those who consider that they themselves are not responsible for the problem, it would please other farmers within the Mercosur area, since (unless affected by a similar ban due to problems in the production chain of which they are part) they would remain free to sell to the EU, and the quota would be available to them.

These issues arise with or without the Mercosur trade deal. The EU is not self-sufficient in beef, and the excess of consumption over production is projected to grow. So there will be more and more imports, if not from Mercosur countries then from non-Mercosur countries. The quality standards, and the challenge of enforcing them, arise in either case. Arguably, the security of having a quota for export to the EU gives the Mercosur beef producers an incentive to invest in quality assurance systems so that they can be confident of being able to take advantage of the quota.

This bit is important because it's irrelevant. The amount of European beef production in not linked to the price of beef in Europe, as there is an oversupply of beef at present. Increasing supply from overseas as a preferential rate won't do anything positive to support beef prices.


Another interesting thing to come out of this is that it shows just how tenuous support for the European project can be, even among those that would be the strongest supporters in Ireland.

trellheim wrote: »

I had to laugh when I heard the Irish farmers whinging, when we have an Irishman in as Agriculture Commissioner ( and yes, I am well aware that they are notionally removed of the country t-shirt when they go into the Commission )


Not one single bit of research was done, some boy texted someone else and rte phoned up with a line to take and bingo its a headline fk me we are small minded

I don't think you'd be laughing if the price of the goods you produced or wages you took home were going to be depressed to facilitate increased trade in another sector.

Deleted User wrote: »

There were several black representatives there, so no one can play the racist card!
Edit: replying to the original comment about the make up of the candidates.

Em, you do know that coloured people can be considered British as well!

It is not the British they are racist against.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Hunt has come out today and basically said that he will make a final call on No Deal Brexit on 30 September. If renegotians are not going as planned, or he doesn't see a prospect of a deal that he can get through HoC, then he will walk away and start full on no deal prep.

Both himself and Johnson are painting pretty tight spaces around themselves

Here is the quotes from the Guardian link posted by BobbyBobberson,

Following the vote for the new plan in the House of Commons I will then allow 3 weeks for negotiations with the EU. As prime minister I will make a judgement on 30th September as to whether there is a realistic chance of a new deal being agreed that can pass the House of Commons.

If my judgement - and the judgement of my negotiating team - is that there is a deal to be done I will seek to conclude the negotiations and pass a new meaningful vote and any necessary legislation in the House of Commons before the end of October.

If my judgement is that there is no deal to be done I will immediately cease all discussions with the European Union and focus the whole country’s attention on no deal preparations.

So he thinks his new negotiating team will go to the EU and get a new deal. The new team will consist of,

A new political negotiating team will be convened with members of the ERG, the DUP, members of the One Nation Group and Welsh and Scottish Conservatives. It will be led by the Brexit Secretary and supported at an official level by Crawford Falconer. He will be supported by top experts from around the world. They will be tasked with producing an alternative exit deal, based on the alternative arrangements proposals, that can command a majority in the House of Commons and addresses, seriously and forensically, legitimate EU and Irish concerns about the Irish border and the integrity of the single market. This plan will be published by the end of August.

They will get a new deal that has evaded the UK for the past 2 years, because of reasons. Then he will assess on the 30th September if there is a chance for this deal and he will negotiate it, have it voted on in the HoC and pass all the legislation as well for the UK to leave on the 31st October.

What Theresa May and the best civil service in the world could not do in more than 2 years, he with the help of the ERG and DUP and the Scottish Conservatives will be able to get done in less than a month. We have gone back to full delusion again and cherry picking and unicorns.

BobbyBobberson wrote: »

Yup, just looking at his twitter feed and he his going full hog on No Deal, good God. Corporation Tax mentioned again.

This will be his budget plans,

This will include my existing policies of cutting corporation tax cut to 12.5%, increasing the annual allowance to £5m, and taking 90% of high street businesses out of rates, which I will introduce in any circumstance.

This will include a £6bn fund for the fishing and farming sectors who export to Europe to ease transition out of the European Union whilst honouring our international obligations. It will also consider what relief other industries will require.

So he has found a magic money tree as well it seems. Money for everyone that will be affected by no-deal. This is delusion upon delusion in search for the keys to number 10. Either he is going to upset the ERG when he turns on them and he gets an extension and he is in the same position as May was, or he will go for no-deal in which case he loses a no-confidence vote in the HoC.

It is very likely that any GE would return quite a lot of Brexit MP's. It probably, based on the polls, lead to an extremely divided HoC. With any government made up of a number of parties.

Not sure how that is in any way beneficial to the EU in terms of Brexit.

There is a government. They need to stand up and face the realities. Changing the deck chairs on the deck won't make the issues go away.