Continuation Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The prohibition was a protectionist measure to support EU chicken farmers

How so? The same rules apply to chicken produced in the EU and US producers can sell to the EU simply by conforming to EU product standards.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I'm not sure it will matter so much now, but I suppose UK chicken farmers might still want to keep it anyways.

It’s not farmers that take issue with the practice, it's consumers. Consumers object because it’s used as a substitute for cleanliness in processing and raising the animals. The only thing dipping in chlorine accomplishes is to sterilize any chicken excrement that is still on the bird, so eating it won’t make people sick. The excrement is still there and people still end up eating it.

EU standards are structured to ensure that the excrement isn’t there in the first place so ensuring it’s sterilized and eating it won't make people sick is moot.

[The Don]

Apparently the UK will seek a "Canada style deal" with the EU.

So we'd be outside a customs union and relying on unicorn-fuelled technology to reduce the administrative overhead. In particular the EU would want to ensure that the UK isn't a back-door into the EU. Any technological solution would be very expensive and take years to implement (not least because the technology doesn't exist).

Canadian companies exporting to the EU have to prove that their products conform to EU standards. Under a Canadian-style deal, UK companies would have to do the same - an expensive and time consuming process.

The Canadian deal does not include services, 80% of the UK economy and a sector which has a significant trade surplus with the EU. It specifically does not include financial passporting, something that is very important to the financial services sector.

Now any and all of this could be negotiated in a mutually beneficial way. The problem is that a bespoke trade deal is going to take orders of magnitude longer to negotiate than an "off the shelf one".

Even if the UK was able to take the Canada deal, the UK's physical proximity to the EU may mean that there will be issues.

One major reason for a Canada deal is so that the UK can immediately agree a catastrophic deal with the US

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by abaddon

You are getting "sovereignty". And you can chuck that pole out of the country. Isn't that nice?

Yeah... After all why would a customer who books my service on a ongoing basis and pays me whether they use it or not (including bank holidays) and gave me a lovely Xmas present. Instead I can have a blue passport in 5 years...

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by lomiller

How so? The same rules apply to chicken produced in the EU and US producers can sell to the EU simply by conforming to EU product standards.

In principle they can, but a lot of US producers are already set up to use pathogen reduction treatment (PRT) washing, and to switch over to a different process would cost them a lot of money.

Quote:

It’s not farmers that take issue with the practice, it's consumers.

I find that unlikely. Most consumers probably don't even understand the issue. To the extent that they even know it exists, it's probably because of public relations campaigns by producers. A lot of product regulations exist at the behest of established producers even though they are claimed as consumer protection. The EU isn't alone in this regard, the US does it too.

Quote:

Consumers object because it’s used as a substitute for cleanliness in processing and raising the animals. The only thing dipping in chlorine accomplishes is to sterilize any chicken excrement that is still on the bird, so eating it won’t make people sick. The excrement is still there and people still end up eating it.

FDA requirements already include pre-wash inspection to remove excrement, and the wash itself helps remove any traces of excrement that may have been undetected.

Quote:

EU standards are structured to ensure that the excrement isn’t there in the first place so ensuring it’s sterilized and eating it won't make people sick is moot.

If traces of excrement are actually the source of concern, then that specifically is what the regulations should target. But they don't.

[3point14]

Where the **** is David Cameron?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by The Don

Canadian companies exporting to the EU have to prove that their products conform to EU standards. Under a Canadian-style deal, UK companies would have to do the same - an expensive and time consuming process.

This doesn't make sense to me. Don't UK companies already have to prove that their products conform to EU standards? Don't EU standards get applied to products produced within the EU? Haven't they been doing this all along?

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by 3point14

Where the **** is David Cameron?

Here

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

FDA requirements already include pre-wash inspection to remove excrement, and the wash itself helps remove any traces of excrement that may have been undetected.

Chlorine allows wash and animal care standards to be lower, which is why the chicken is cheaper. It costs more but you can (and the EU does) get comparable food safety with higher standards for cleaning and require the birds to be kept in cleaner conditions.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I find that unlikely. Most consumers probably don't even understand the issue.

Are consumers are fine with traces of excrement in their chicken or if they would prefer to pay a little more and have no excrement whatsoever. Either one may work from a safety perspective but consumers in the UK have come down firmly on the side of chicken with “no excrement whatsoever”. So much so that the prospect of importing chicken processed under US standards is a significant political issue in the UK. It’s viewed as a major drop in product standards to the point where Brexit proponents promised that the chlorine dipped alternative would never be allowed.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

This doesn't make sense to me. Don't UK companies already have to prove that their products conform to EU standards? Don't EU standards get applied to products produced within the EU? Haven't they been doing this all along?

Currently UK follows EU standards, so enforcing UK standards guarantees EU standards are met. The UK plans to end it's harmonization with EU standards.

This means going forward in addition to enforcing it’s own standards, the UK will require a separate process for products being exported to the EU similar to other non-EU countries like Canada.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Currently UK follows EU standards, so enforcing UK standards guarantees EU standards are met. The UK plans to end it's harmonization with EU standards.

This means going forward in addition to enforcing it’s own standards, the UK will require a separate process for products being exported to the EU similar to other non-EU countries like Canada.

What is likely to happen is that they will simply use one process that adheres to the higher standard, like car makers build to the California emission standard now even for states which don't require it. If the EU standard is higher, then that is no more expensive and time consuming than it would be by remaining. If the UK standard is higher, well, any extra expense will be something the UK will have decided is worth it to get that higher standard.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Are consumers are fine with traces of excrement in their chicken or if they would prefer to pay a little more and have no excrement whatsoever. Either one may work from a safety perspective but consumers in the UK have come down firmly on the side of chicken with “no excrement whatsoever”. So much so that the prospect of importing chicken processed under US standards is a significant political issue in the UK. It’s viewed as a major drop in product standards to the point where Brexit proponents promised that the chlorine dipped alternative would never be allowed.

I don't actually believe this is the real motivation. If that were the real concern, all you'd need to do is have labeling requirements. People who didn't want the US-style processing could avoid it, people who wanted cheaper chicken could buy it. But labeling doesn't suffice if you're not just trying to avoid buying it yourself, but preventing other people from buying it.

And the people with the real incentive to prevent others from buying it are the producers, not consumers. That's why I think this is all a PR campaign driven by producers, even if they've managed to get popular support with appeals to emotion.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by The Don

And it would require those goods and services to comply with EU rules and regulations but with no influence on those rules - so much for the UK not being a "rule taker".

IMO this is just yet another example of Brexiteers having no clue about the realities of international trade and running smack-back into the brick wall of reality.

Maybe we just opt for the Russia scenario where export quality vodka is the good stuff but there is no obligation for locally produced hooch to not make you go blind.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Chlorine allows wash and animal care standards to be lower, which is why the chicken is cheaper. It costs more but you can (and the EU does) get comparable food safety with higher standards for cleaning and require the birds to be kept in cleaner conditions.


Are consumers are fine with traces of excrement in their chicken or if they would prefer to pay a little more and have no excrement whatsoever. Either one may work from a safety perspective but consumers in the UK have come down firmly on the side of chicken with “no excrement whatsoever”. So much so that the prospect of importing chicken processed under US standards is a significant political issue in the UK. It’s viewed as a major drop in product standards to the point where Brexit proponents promised that the chlorine dipped alternative would never be allowed.

Given the US and EU food poisoning rates - the EU approach seems to work better - and there are situations where the washing is ineffective.

[ceptimus]

There are plenty of food poisoning cases due to chicken in EU countries, and the USA regardless of the regulations.

Regulations are only any good if they're adhered to - and the person preparing and cooking the chicken also needs to follow recommended handling and cooking precautions. In no country is it safe to eat badly prepared or undercooked chicken.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Lothian

Here

In the US it's called "The Rubber Chicken Circuit".

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

What is likely to happen is that they will simply use one process that adheres to the higher standard, like car makers build to the California emission standard now even for states which don't require it. If the EU standard is higher, then that is no more expensive and time consuming than it would be by remaining. If the UK standard is higher, well, any extra expense will be something the UK will have decided is worth it to get that higher standard.

Talking explicitly about products. Unless the UK explicitly adopts the EU standard (politically difficult because that would make us a "rule taker") then the product in question would have to be recertified for the EU regardless of whether the UK standard was higher, lower or equivalent. Certification is a time consuming and expensive process which may be worthwhile if you're doing millions of pounds worth of business but not if you're a smaller company trying to break into a market.

One of the supposed benefits of Brexit was an alleged reduction in red tape for business. The opposite seems to be the case for anyone dealing internationally.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I thought you identified as Finnish

Don't tell me what I think. The sheer impudence and presumptuousness that lies behind this personalised message....

[Vixen]

According to BBC News Papers:

Quote:

The Financial Times believes the end of Britain's "tumultuous" 47-year membership of the EU has dealt an unprecedented blow to the process of post-war integration on the continent.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by The Don

Apparently the UK will seek a "Canada style deal" with the EU.

So we'd be outside a customs union and relying on unicorn-fuelled technology to reduce the administrative overhead. In particular the EU would want to ensure that the UK isn't a back-door into the EU. Any technological solution would be very expensive and take years to implement (not least because the technology doesn't exist).

Canadian companies exporting to the EU have to prove that their products conform to EU standards. Under a Canadian-style deal, UK companies would have to do the same - an expensive and time consuming process.

The Canadian deal does not include services, 80% of the UK economy and a sector which has a significant trade surplus with the EU. It specifically does not include financial passporting, something that is very important to the financial services sector.

Now any and all of this could be negotiated in a mutually beneficial way. The problem is that a bespoke trade deal is going to take orders of magnitude longer to negotiate than an "off the shelf one".

Even if the UK was able to take the Canada deal, the UK's physical proximity to the EU may mean that there will be issues.

One major reason for a Canada deal is so that the UK can immediately agree a catastrophic deal with the US

In other words the UK has no idea what it is doing. Together with Priti Patel's idea for an 'Australian-style' point system (er, she does know there has been a points system since 2008...?) it is totally ******.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

In principle they can, but a lot of US producers are already set up to use pathogen reduction treatment (PRT) washing, and to switch over to a different process would cost them a lot of money.



I find that unlikely. Most consumers probably don't even understand the issue. To the extent that they even know it exists, it's probably because of public relations campaigns by producers. A lot of product regulations exist at the behest of established producers even though they are claimed as consumer protection. The EU isn't alone in this regard, the US does it too.



FDA requirements already include pre-wash inspection to remove excrement, and the wash itself helps remove any traces of excrement that may have been undetected.



If traces of excrement are actually the source of concern, then that specifically is what the regulations should target. But they don't.

Question: who or what has been excreting over the dead bodies of chickens?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by toto

Actually we leave 11pm UK time tonight, Midnight Brussels time, so that is the time to see how quiet the celebrations or other manifestations of emotion are.

It took so long because Teresa May ran what was in hindsight a poorly run and unnecessary General Election and therefore didn't have sufficient votes to get her deal through Parliament.

And Johnson wanted to be PM and didn't have the courage to directly challenge her so spent years screwing with Brexit to get himself into number 10.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by lomiller

How so? The same rules apply to chicken produced in the EU and US producers can sell to the EU simply by conforming to EU product standards.







It’s not farmers that take issue with the practice, it's consumers. Consumers object because it’s used as a substitute for cleanliness in processing and raising the animals. The only thing dipping in chlorine accomplishes is to sterilize any chicken excrement that is still on the bird, so eating it won’t make people sick. The excrement is still there and people still end up eating it.



EU standards are structured to ensure that the excrement isn’t there in the first place so ensuring it’s sterilized and eating it won't make people sick is moot.

And it disguises the likes of salmonella.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Yeah... After all why would a customer who books my service on a ongoing basis and pays me whether they use it or not (including bank holidays) and gave me a lovely Xmas present. Instead I can have a blue passport in 5 years...

A blue passport made in France. Be great if at the back of the passport it says "country of origin EU".

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Question: who or what has been excreting over the dead bodies of chickens?

The guts have to be ripped out manually. Contamination of the carcass with gut contents is a given, so the outcome comes down to subsequent cleaning procedures in the factory and then cooking and handling procedures in the kitchen. Chlorine washing allows slacker factory procedures.

[Vixen]

Meet your new boss:

https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/s...298247680?s=20

[Garrison]

Frankly I'm far more worried about the prospect of the USA attempting to limit the power of the NHS to negotiate drug prices as part of a deal than I am about chlorinated chicken or GMOs in the food chain. Trump has made it repeatedly clear he thinks US consumers are somehow subsidizing drug prices for places like the UK. Also given its an election year in the USA how much progress will there actually be on a trade deal?

[Vixen]

The theme of today's papers seems to be:

'So here we are — celebrating the dawn of the new age.'

Isn't the 'golden dawn' a far right euphemism...? New dawn my foot. More like darkness descends.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Don't tell me what I think. The sheer impudence and presumptuousness that lies behind this personalised message....

Umm I wasn't "telling you what you think". I was telling you what you'd written.

[Arcade22]

BJ's big Brexit speech: basically nothing about Brexit, and just about how amazing the future of the UK is looking in his hands. Finally after they have gotten through with leaving the EU, the UK can now start tackling the issues that really matter to real people (unlike Brexit). Issues like stagnant wages, underfunded healthcare, social exclusion and it just goes on and on...

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

BJ's big Brexit speech: basically nothing about Brexit, and just about how amazing the future of the UK is looking in his hands. Finally after they have gotten through with leaving the EU, the UK can now start tackling monetizing the issues that really matter to real people (unlike which they could have before Brexit). Issues like stagnant wages those kids on my lawn, underfundedprivatized healthcare, social exclusion awareness and it just goes on and on...

Better.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Currently UK follows EU standards, so enforcing UK standards guarantees EU standards are met. The UK plans to end it's harmonization with EU standards.

This means going forward in addition to enforcing it’s own standards, the UK will require a separate process for products being exported to the EU similar to other non-EU countries like Canada.

Dear me no, not at all. UKgov will merely offload responsibility for meeting EU standards on those companies needing to trade with the EU. After all, it is no longer a UKgov concern, is it?

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Question: who or what has been excreting over the dead bodies of chickens?

Chickens...duh.

[Darat]

The Guardian: Johnson to impose full customs checks on goods from EU – report.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...from-eu-report

Opps...

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Darat

The Guardian: Johnson to impose full customs checks on goods from EU – report.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...from-eu-report

Opps...

Strewth

[Captain_Swoop]

What's the surprise?

[ceptimus]

Talking tough to try to secure a good deal. Negotiation 101. Something Theresa May was never prepared to do, but something the EU has done throughout, and will continue to do.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Of course negotiation 101 works a lot better from a strong position, and the UK does not have that.
But sure, threaten to harm your economy a lot. I'm sure that will work better this time.

[ceptimus]

The alternative is to just agree to everything the other side wants.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Talking tough to try to secure a good deal. Negotiation 101. Something Theresa May was never prepared to do, but something the EU has done throughout, and will continue to do.

Talking tough only works if you have leverage and credibility, Boris Johnson has neither.

Originally Posted by ceptimus

The alternative is to just agree to everything the other side wants.

Yes, which is pretty much what the UK is going to have to do in all its trade negotiations however much Little Englanders stamp their feet and demand special treatment. If the EU, which actually wants a reasonable deal, is playing hardball what do you think the USA and China are going to do?

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

Of course negotiation 101 works a lot better from a strong position, and the UK does not have that.
But sure, threaten to harm your economy a lot. I'm sure that will work better this time.

The "Hold it! Next man makes a move, the ****** gets it" school of negotiation