The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

[apelike]

and our local farmers and growers go out of business or we have to reduce standards so low that the you don't know what you are eating is what it says it is or is even safe to eat.

 

And yet being in the EU gave us.. Toxic eggs from Belgium and Holland, Hepatitus E in pig products from Denmark, Germany and Holland and Horsemeat sold as beef, with a lot of it coming from a Dutch meat wholesaler. The list goes on but these are the most common and mainly reported ones.

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/fipronil-eggs-scandal-toxic-expose-eus-struggle-to-police-food-safety/

 

A quote from it:

 

"The European Commission’s struggle to enforce its own rules, and its weakness in relation to powerful member countries and national industries, was apparent in the 2015 Volkswagen crisis, which highlighted its difficulty in overseeing the implementation of its own emissions standards.

 

The egg scandal, which appears to have spread from Belgium and the Netherlands, is following that familiar trajectory."

[andyofborg]

And yet being in the EU gave us.. Toxic eggs from Belgium and Holland, Hepatitus E in pig products from Denmark, Germany and Holland and Horsemeat sold as beef, with a lot of it coming from a Dutch meat wholesaler. The list goes on but these are the most common and mainly reported ones.

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/fipronil-eggs-scandal-toxic-expose-eus-struggle-to-police-food-safety/

 

A quote from it:

 

"The European Commission’s struggle to enforce its own rules, and its weakness in relation to powerful member countries and national industries, was apparent in the 2015 Volkswagen crisis, which highlighted its difficulty in overseeing the implementation of its own emissions standards.

 

The egg scandal, which appears to have spread from Belgium and the Netherlands, is following that familiar trajectory."

 

and how will zero tariff imports from all over the world make things any better, if anything it will make matters worse.

[chalga]

I'm rather cheered by the way things are going. Since the agreement announced on Friday no deal now means full alignment with the single market and customs union rather than WTO rules. This means that hard brexiters are going to have to propose and justify things rather than just stamp their feet and yell 'NOT THAT' at anything they don't like.

 

I'm surprised that more brexiters haven't commented on that. Perhaps they haven't realised it's significance.

 

This is the ambiguity of the language of the deal,how can the UK leave the customs Union and the single market and have full alignment with it?.............the EU have no power to keep them to that agreement,so they can pick and choose,what it means for me is that it takes care of ROI,and doesn't leave them with a hard border north,south,east or west,and so not marooned by hard borders.

[I1L2T3]

And yet being in the EU gave us.. Toxic eggs from Belgium and Holland, Hepatitus E in pig products from Denmark, Germany and Holland and Horsemeat sold as beef, with a lot of it coming from a Dutch meat wholesaler. The list goes on but these are the most common and mainly reported ones.

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/fipronil-eggs-scandal-toxic-expose-eus-struggle-to-police-food-safety/

 

A quote from it:

 

"The European Commission’s struggle to enforce its own rules, and its weakness in relation to powerful member countries and national industries, was apparent in the 2015 Volkswagen crisis, which highlighted its difficulty in overseeing the implementation of its own emissions standards.

 

The egg scandal, which appears to have spread from Belgium and the Netherlands, is following that familiar trajectory."

 

Because rules can’t always be implemented 100% perfectly how is that any kind of justification for throwing the rules away. Your logic is deeply flawed there.

 

If say a 90% successful implementation is achieved then the chances are that consumers and the public in general will have benefitted greatly.

 

---------- Post added 10-12-2017 at 15:01 ----------

 

This is the ambiguity of the language of the deal,how can the UK leave the customs Union and the single market and have full alignment with it?.............the EU have no power to keep them to that agreement,so they can pick and choose,what it means for me is that it takes care of ROI,and doesn't leave them with a hard border north,south,east or west,and so not marooned by hard borders.

 

If the DUP won’t accept any differences from the U.K., and the agreed deal is that NI will have SM and CU membership then it follows that the whole of the U.K. will too.

 

May has probably just played a blinder there and baked in a soft Brexit. Didn’t take long for the EU to agree did it.....

 

BMWs and prosecco for everyone

[apelike]

Because rules can’t always be implemented 100% perfectly how is that any kind of justification for throwing the rules away. Your logic is deeply flawed there.

 

What logic? and who said to throw them away? I was pointing out the fact that despite the EU rules they still get broken and these are by the richer countries as well, so should know better. If the rules, as in that article, are not up to scratch then they are also not fit for purpose.

 

If say a 90% successful implementation is achieved then the chances are that consumers and the public in general will have benefitted greatly.

 

There you go with those if's again.. If there was only a 40% successful implementation would you say the same.

 

---------- Post added 10-12-2017 at 15:26 ----------

 

and how will zero tariff imports from all over the world make things any better, if anything it will make matters worse.

 

We already import from all over the world so what will change?

[Lockdoctor]

and our local farmers and growers go out of business or we have to reduce standards so low that the you don't know what you are eating is what it says it is or is even safe to eat.

 

at the end of the day we would end up with zero food security, it wouldn't take a great deal to upset global supply lines especially as they are all very much run on the just in time basis so there are next to no stocks of things to cover blips in supply.

You're looking for problems. Any zero tariff food trade agreements would be between countries which have similar food security as the UK or agree to adopt the same UK standards. The EU didn't prevent the BSE disease which affected British beef farmers. The EU didn't prevent food contaminated with horse meat from going on the shelves of British supermarkets. The EU haven't prevented British dairy farmers from going out of business.

[tzijlstra]

The EU haven't prevented British dairy farmers from going out of business.

 

We'll see about that when the payments stop.

 

Should the EU and UK agree a free trade agreement dairy prices will rise slightly in the UK and dairy farmers will see a bit more in returns. The problem they have is that the bulk of their income comes from the EU's farming subsidies.

 

Once that stops dairy farmers will start dropping like flies AND/OR dairy will become extremely expensive very quickly to compensate.

 

Not only that - the EU didn't have to prevent the things you wanted them to prevent, the UK wouldn't have prevented it either. Things happen, it is daft to blame a government for stuff like biological diseases.

[Lockdoctor]

We'll see about that when the payments stop.

 

Should the EU and UK agree a free trade agreement dairy prices will rise slightly in the UK and dairy farmers will see a bit more in returns. The problem they have is that the bulk of their income comes from the EU's farming subsidies.

 

Once that stops dairy farmers will start dropping like flies AND/OR dairy will become extremely expensive very quickly to compensate.

 

Not only that - the EU didn't have to prevent the things you wanted them to prevent, the UK wouldn't have prevented it either. Things happen, it is daft to blame a government for stuff like biological diseases.

I wasn't blaming the EU for anything. After the UK leaves the EU, it will be up to the UK Government to pay farm subsidies which they judge to be in the national interest and there will be winners and losers. A high so called divorce settlement might not be in the national interest, even if it does pave the way for a free trade deal with the EU. There are good arguments that the UK would be better off with a no deal with the EU.

[altus]

I wasn't blaming the EU for anything. After the UK leaves the EU, it will be up to the UK Government to pay farm subsidies which they judge to be in the national interest and there will be winners and losers. A high so called divorce settlement might not be in the national interest, even if it does pave the way for a free trade deal with the EU. There are good arguments that the UK would be better off with a no deal with the EU.

Make them then - presenting evidence to justify why they are "good" rather than just claiming they are.

[I1L2T3]

What logic? and who said to throw them away? I was pointing out the fact that despite the EU rules they still get broken and these are by the richer countries as well, so should know better. If the rules, as in that article, are not up to scratch then they are also not fit for purpose.

 

 

 

There you go with those if's again.. If there was only a 40% successful implementation would you say the same.

 

---------- Post added 10-12-2017 at 15:26 ----------

 

 

We already import from all over the world so what will change?

 

What were you saying about ifs?