Brexit

[Que]

Reuters:

UK growth slows to six-month low as post-lockdown shortages bite -PMI

[Madiel]

Farming?

Food exports is one of the areas where Australia specifically ensures that exports to the EU meet the EU's standards, which are quite strict. I know because I happen to have had some involvement in the latest version of our legislation on this point.

I can't imagine the UK saying they want to not bother meeting the EU's strict standards.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Farming?

Could be relevant if it would affect food standards, be it stricter or less strict. Less strict standards would negatively influence the possibility to export the produce to the EU (as well as the well being of animals or humans, and the environment).

Stricter standards, I would be all for it. But the EU already has standards for organically produced foods. See, I can't the point there either.

The problem with more environmental and and animal friendly farming, which I would be strongly in favour of, are not the food standards but is competition. These so needed changes will mostly lead to higher prices. And this is why these changes need to be implemented in a market that can separated from the world market. Or else farmers will be outpriced and financially destroyed by the world market. The internal market of the EU is such a market, that protects European farmers from "unfair" competition.

The UK could do the same and implement its own farming policies and shielding off its national market with import restrictions and subsidising its famers. But can it do so in reality? 

No, of course not...

How many people really want to support their local farmers--or maybe it's a case of *"will vs. want" when it comes down to the bottom line--their wallets....particularly when it's possibly also a choice about sustainable organic farming vs. big commercial growers/businesses?  Obviously, one cannot grow everything everywhere due to differences in climates.

*And as Que mentioned, there's the option of subsidizing its own farmers...and also figuring out how to help get money into the hands of those needing food subsidies and ways for them to be able to use their food stamps/credits at local farmers markets and farm stands, etc.

Anyway, just some thoughts....

PD

[Irons]

Australia regularly adopts EU or American standards for things because yes, it really isn't worth it. The UK is of course a bigger population/market than us, but for the bureaucracy that actually has to administer these things (as opposed to the people who voted for Brexit) I can't imagine there's many cases where they look at the EU system and think there's something fundamental they want to change.

If you are involved in the legislation then as an outsider looking in I'm punching well above my weight. But if I read you correctly that EU and US standards are similar, I am surprised by that considering the furore in the UK that due to Brexit we may import chlorinated chicken from the US.
Why is it assumed that leaving the EU results in lower standards? It ain't necessary so.     

[Que]

If you are involved in the legislation then as an outsider looking in I'm punching well above my weight. But if I read you correctly that EU and US standards are similar, I am surprised by that considering the furore in the UK that due to Brexit we may import chlorinated chicken from the US.

EU and US standards are not (in all areas) similar, but they are two most dominant sets of standards in the world - because of the size of the markets. The EU standards are overall stricter, particular those on food. And they are even more dominant than US standards by consequence. Because if your product meets EU standards, you can sell it not only in the EU but also in the US and anywhere else in the world. This world wide regulatory dominance of the EU, which also applies to competion rules and  consumer protection rules, is just a matter of fact.

Why is it assumed that leaving the EU results in lower standards? It ain't necessary so. 

No, it isn't. But I haven't heard anything about stricter UK standards. And lower standards will be practically (economically and politically) impossible, so my guess is they will be (stay) the same. Independent in name only.

[Madiel]

If you are involved in the legislation then as an outsider looking in I'm punching well above my weight. But if I read you correctly that EU and US standards are similar, I am surprised by that considering the furore in the UK that due to Brexit we may import chlorinated chicken from the US.
Why is it assumed that leaving the EU results in lower standards? It ain't necessary so. 

Que has me correct, I'm not saying EU and US standards are similar, I'm saying that they're dominant. Which one we follow depends on the field bWhen it comes to food export specifically, it's the EU that we pay attention to.

[Irons]

Que has me correct, I'm not saying EU and US standards are similar, I'm saying that they're dominant. Which one we follow depends on the field bWhen it comes to food export specifically, it's the EU that we pay attention to.

Then why this?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/australia-uk-trade-deal-food-imports-b1843423.html

[Madiel]

Then why this?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/australia-uk-trade-deal-food-imports-b1843423.html

1. Because if you're not in the EU, our requirements to meet EU standards don't apply. Same as if we're exporting to the US, our requirements to meet EU standards don't apply. Our system of EU accreditation is relevant for exporters looking to export to the EU.

2. Because scary headlines are the kind of clickbait publicity some people need.

[Irons]

1. Because if you're not in the EU, our requirements to meet EU standards don't apply. Same as if we're exporting to the US, our requirements to meet EU standards don't apply. Our system of EU accreditation is relevant for exporters looking to export to the EU.

2. Because scary headlines are the kind of clickbait publicity some people need.

Surely you have your own standards and regulations that by law your exporters have to adhere to no matter who receive your goods. For example there are strict rules in the UK on how livestock are treated, these are not relaxed if for export wherever. Quite the opposite.

I did smile. Many times on this thread newspaper articles are used to support an argument. I do it and its "clickbait". 

[Madiel]

Surely you have your own standards and regulations that by law your exporters have to adhere to no matter who receive your goods. For example there are strict rules in the UK on how livestock are treated, these are not relaxed if for export wherever. Quite the opposite.

I did smile. Many times on this thread newspaper articles are used to support an argument. I do it and its "clickbait". 

I referred to laws about food export, not about what happens on farms. The standards and regulations I'm talking about are standards that basically say "you may only export to the EU if the goods have been produced/prepared at an EU-accredited establishment". From memory meat is where it's particularly relevant. In theory that's a law everyone has to abide by. In practice the law is only relevant to you if you're at least thinking about export to the EU.  I'm sure a lot of businesses in the sector make sure that they meet the EU standards so that they're not closed off from that market, but if you have zero interest in exporting to the EU it's not relevant.

I'm sure people have used newspaper articles many times, but I'm also sure you don't believe that all newspaper articles are interchangeable and of equal merit.

[Irons]

I referred to laws about food export, not about what happens on farms. The standards and regulations I'm talking about are standards that basically say "you may only export to the EU if the goods have been produced/prepared at an EU-accredited establishment". From memory meat is where it's particularly relevant. In theory that's a law everyone has to abide by. In practice the law is only relevant to you if you're at least thinking about export to the EU.  I'm sure a lot of businesses in the sector make sure that they meet the EU standards so that they're not closed off from that market, but if you have zero interest in exporting to the EU it's not relevant.

I'm sure people have used newspaper articles many times, but I'm also sure you don't believe that all newspaper articles are interchangeable and of equal merit.

Fair enough.

As a reader of the rag, Daily Mail (I'm a big footie fan, that's my excuse anyway) I thought The Independent a quite highbrow source. Evidently not.

[Madiel]

I don't have a particular beef with the Independent. I have a problem with an article that consists entirely of hypotheticals about what could happen in the future.

Edit: and some of it is just wrong. First thing I looked up? Chlorinated chicken. Permitted level of chlorine in Australia is THE SAME AS IN THE EU. And it's not zero in the EU.

Whereas the permitted level in the US is quite a bit higher. But that's not the story. The story is that if your CHILD is fed Australian chickens they could possibly... be subjected to the same levels of chlorination that have always been possible.

Nothing more than emotional button-pushing. Which is not originally pushed by The Independent, but these days journalists don't have the time or perhaps even the training to do anything beyond repeat whatever they were told.

[71 dB]

"Breathtaking Stupidity" Brexit Lowering Water Standards!

HGV driver shortages are now affecting waste water treatment resulting in the government
letting polluters off the hook if they use Brexit as an excuse for not using the right chemicals
to treat effluent.

Watch the video on Youtube (Maximilien Robespierre)

[Que]

EU Brexit controls are pointless bureaucracy, says M&S chairman - Archie Norman says rules on exports 'serve no purpose at all' as UK food standards remain aligned to EU

I know the situation is kind of sad, but excuse me for having a good laugh about the absurdity of it all.

Yes, it doesn't make any sense to leave an internal market if you remain in regulatory alignment with it, which you have to do out of economic necessity.

I have said this before. I could understand that the UK wanted to abandon the EU as a political project, though that came at significant loss of geopolitical clout as a price. It never made any sense to leave the internal market. That decision wasn't put to the British people and was made out of ignorance  and the political need to hammer the sovereignty point home. The beaches of Dunkirk, and all of that...

It cannot be done and it is pointless economic self harm in its purest form.

Some personal side remarks/ predictions:
- This Tory government will either delay the last phases of (economic) "independence" indefinitely or do a Swiss style deal as proposed by the EU.
- The next (Labour) government is going to rejoin the internal market
- The EU will never allow the UK to rejoin the EU as a member, at least not in this century
- When the UK rejoins the internal market, that would remove the biggest obstacle for Scottish independence.

[71 dB]

- The next (Labour) government is going to rejoin the internal market

When is this supposed to happen? How is Labour planning on getting into power? Are they communicating the failures of Boris Johnson/the Conservative Party to the voters in an effective way?

[Que]

When is this supposed to happen? How is Labour planning on getting into power? Are they communicating the failures of Boris Johnson/the Conservative Party to the voters in an effective way?

When? Given the British political system, years from now.
But the failure of Brexit will be of such nature, that it is hard to see how the Tories are going to win the next elections.

[Que]

Surprise....

Brexit: Checks on goods imported from the EU delayed again

[71 dB]

When? Given the British political system, years from now.
But the failure of Brexit will be of such nature, that it is hard to see how the Tories are going to win the next elections.

Please don't underestimate the stupidity and ignorance of voters. The Tories keep blaming the EU for all Brexit problems and people will believe them.

[Que]

Please don't underestimate the stupidity and ignorance of voters. The Tories keep blaming the EU for all Brexit problems and people will believe them.

The EU and Covid, which an even better distracton.

But UK economic recovery is already behind the EU. And over time the impact of Brexit will steadily grow.
Though this gradual, creeping nature of the economic impact of Brexit might make it easier for politicians to ignore or brush off. This gradual effect is reinforced by the extensive transition periods, the subsequent "grace" periods, and now the unilateral "delays". Brexit is still not fully "done" and the Johnson gvt has realised that actually completing the process will be political suicide.

[71 dB]

The EU and Covid, which an even better distracton.

Yes, you're correct! Covid-19 has been a convenient distraction, but hopefully we are seeing it go away in the near future. 

But UK economic recovery is already behind the EU. And over time the impact of Brexit will steadily grow.

Yes. Cumulative effects build up.

Though this gradual, creeping nature of the economic impact of Brexit might make it easier for politicians to ignore or brush off. This gradual effect is reinforced by the extensive transition periods, the subsequent "grace" periods, and now the unilateral "delays". Brexit is still not fully "done" and the Johnson gvt has realised that actually completing the process will be political suicide.

They did this to themselves. They did it to advance their political careers. It is only fitting and fair if this leads to their political suicide.  So far, other people have suffered from the consequencies of Brexit, not the elites who lied to regular people.