FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > NZ and Aus FTAs
NZ and Aus FTAs
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Press release Landmark post-Brexit trade deals to come into force this month driving economic growth across the UK Expected to come into force 31/5/23 " Seemed to be ages since it was announced as signed so good they finally got a start date. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Australia FTA by 2035 UK GDP increase 0.08% NZ FTA by 2035 UK GDP increase by 0.03% CPTPP by 2038 UK GDP increase by 0.08% Total: 0.19% Blah, blah "dynamic", blah, blah "Briefings for Britain", blah, blah, "Professor Gudgin", blah, blah, "the 'real' economic benefits are better but there is no way to calculate it", blah, blah. Those are the only reliable economic predictions and calculations available. Tiny, but in the right direction based on only GDP, however there will be both gains and losses to the UK economy represented by this figure. There may be some increase in UK political influence in the Pacific region. Balanced with 4% loss GDP and loss of influence in Europe hardly a victory lap." We went over these calculations last time and I cleared things up for you. And youngot things epically wrong reading theninapct assessment as you always do when reading. All you have is whiny insults when things don't go your way instead of a decent rebuttal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Game-changing. Although, not sure how. " 100% game changing an extra 6 billion a year in trade with only a static model | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Game-changing. Although, not sure how. 100% game changing an extra 6 billion a year in trade with only a static model" 6bn on top of what? Separate question, I get that you have criticism of the economic model. Is there a better one... And I'd so, so you have the impacts for this and brexit to hand? In my mind, models are often wrong, but help somewhat in understanding relative comparisona unless the wrongness has significant bias. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Couldn't find anywhere information about Australian beef and dairy being sold here. Might be worth checking more closely the country of origin on the packaging. " Why? You realise you have red tractor and labels for such things right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Australia FTA by 2035 UK GDP increase 0.08% NZ FTA by 2035 UK GDP increase by 0.03% CPTPP by 2038 UK GDP increase by 0.08% Total: 0.19% Blah, blah "dynamic", blah, blah "Briefings for Britain", blah, blah, "Professor Gudgin", blah, blah, "the 'real' economic benefits are better but there is no way to calculate it", blah, blah. Those are the only reliable economic predictions and calculations available. Tiny, but in the right direction based on only GDP, however there will be both gains and losses to the UK economy represented by this figure. There may be some increase in UK political influence in the Pacific region. Balanced with 4% loss GDP and loss of influence in Europe hardly a victory lap. We went over these calculations last time and I cleared things up for you. And youngot things epically wrong reading theninapct assessment as you always do when reading. All you have is whiny insults when things don't go your way instead of a decent rebuttal. " You "went over" all sorts of things. There is no " whiny" anything. The actual official data is exactly what I quoted. Show me a reference other than your nich "Briefings for Britain" chums where you get all of your information from. That is the rebuttal. Everything else is you hoping and wanting. You have to reinterpret every word and phrase to reach the conclusion that you desperately want to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Game-changing. Although, not sure how. 100% game changing an extra 6 billion a year in trade with only a static model" What's the "dynamicodrl" for list EU trade then? Give us the figures. Australia, NZ, CPTPP and EU. Show us how the "game changes" with calculated numbers or stop "whining". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Press release Landmark post-Brexit trade deals to come into force this month driving economic growth across the UK Expected to come into force 31/5/23 " nothing to see here - agree with the above - but such a ‘landmark deal’doesn’t come close to offsetting the economic losses due to Brexit which seems to be your inference and as for addressing the social impacts….. but I salute you for your optimism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Press release Landmark post-Brexit trade deals to come into force this month driving economic growth across the UK Expected to come into force 31/5/23 nothing to see here - agree with the above - but such a ‘landmark deal’doesn’t come close to offsetting the economic losses due to Brexit which seems to be your inference and as for addressing the social impacts….. but I salute you for your optimism. " It doesn't have to. We have an fta with the e.u for that  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Game-changing. Although, not sure how. 100% game changing an extra 6 billion a year in trade with only a static model What's the "dynamicodrl" for list EU trade then? Give us the figures. Australia, NZ, CPTPP and EU. Show us how the "game changes" with calculated numbers or stop "whining"." You were shown them in the impact assessment when I sent the link in October time last year. You probably didn't comprehend them. Just like when you misread the impact assessment for cptpp. Try reading the impact assessment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Game-changing. Although, not sure how. 100% game changing an extra 6 billion a year in trade with only a static model What's the "dynamicodrl" for list EU trade then? Give us the figures. Australia, NZ, CPTPP and EU. Show us how the "game changes" with calculated numbers or stop "whining". You were shown them in the impact assessment when I sent the link in October time last year. You probably didn't comprehend them. Just like when you misread the impact assessment for cptpp. Try reading the impact assessment. " Enough name calling and attempts to patronise. Enough of your speculation. Write your best calculated figures down here and sources and timespan so that we can compare with the UK Government's own published predictions. If you believe you have "dynamic" calculations then compare the dynamic calculations. Enough claiming benefits for which there is no data: All four GDP changes. Australia, NZ, CPTPP, EU. Australia FTA by 2035 UK GDP increase 0.08% NZ FTA by 2035 UK GDP increase by 0.03% CPTPP by 2038 UK GDP increase by 0.08% Total: 0.19% EU by 2036 UK GDP fall by 4.00% Net outcome: -3.81% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Press release Landmark post-Brexit trade deals to come into force this month driving economic growth across the UK Expected to come into force 31/5/23 nothing to see here - agree with the above - but such a ‘landmark deal’doesn’t come close to offsetting the economic losses due to Brexit which seems to be your inference and as for addressing the social impacts….. but I salute you for your optimism. It doesn't have to. We have an fta with the e.u for that "so not really very game changing then.?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would prefer closer ties with Canada, Oz, and New Zealand so people can travel and settle easier. Nevermind trade deals and GDP stuff." You should follow CANZUK. That's what they're all about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would prefer closer ties with Canada, Oz, and New Zealand so people can travel and settle easier. Nevermind trade deals and GDP stuff." You prefer Canadian, Australian or Kiwi foreigners to European foreigners? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would prefer closer ties with Canada, Oz, and New Zealand so people can travel and settle easier. Nevermind trade deals and GDP stuff." What does that mean? Why are closer ties with those three former colonies preferable to those with any other country? Why is easier travel and settlement to Singapore or India not equally desirable? Why is being able to travel and settle somewhere else preferable to increased economic wealth? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would prefer closer ties with Canada, Oz, and New Zealand so people can travel and settle easier. Nevermind trade deals and GDP stuff." so you voted to make it harder to travel 30 mins by train to our nearest continental neighbour but you would like it to be easier to travel by plane halfway round the world…… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would prefer closer ties with Canada, Oz, and New Zealand so people can travel and settle easier. Nevermind trade deals and GDP stuff. so you voted to make it harder to travel 30 mins by train to our nearest continental neighbour but you would like it to be easier to travel by plane halfway round the world…… " I understood they preferred to have Canadian, Australian and New Zealand foreigners travelling here, than Spanish, German, Italian etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win!" Yeah but, can we now buy Tim Tams | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win!" Now the gains? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? " Go on then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then "Sure (£m) motor vehicles +202 Machinery +231 Services for business +212 Contruction+173 Other services +229 Public services +264 Retail and wholesale trade +341 Personal services +69 Financial services +69 Paper and printing +36 Electronic equipment +89 Energy +24 The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn ( based on 2019 numbers) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then
Sure (£m)
motor vehicles +202
Machinery +231
Services for business +212
Contruction+173
Other services +229
Public services +264
Retail and wholesale trade +341
Personal services +69
Financial services +69
Paper and printing +36
Electronic equipment +89
Energy +24
The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn
( based on 2019 numbers)
"Based on whose forecast? Do you have a link for these figures, (not a Twitter link from Gully though) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then
Sure (£m)
motor vehicles +202
Machinery +231
Services for business +212
Contruction+173
Other services +229
Public services +264
Retail and wholesale trade +341
Personal services +69
Financial services +69
Paper and printing +36
Electronic equipment +89
Energy +24
The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn
( based on 2019 numbers)
"where this from ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then
Sure (£m)
motor vehicles +202
Machinery +231
Services for business +212
Contruction+173
Other services +229
Public services +264
Retail and wholesale trade +341
Personal services +69
Financial services +69
Paper and printing +36
Electronic equipment +89
Energy +24
The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn
( based on 2019 numbers)
where this from ?"I've only mentioned it about 20 times across numerous threads over the last year... The impact assessment  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then
Sure (£m)
motor vehicles +202
Machinery +231
Services for business +212
Contruction+173
Other services +229
Public services +264
Retail and wholesale trade +341
Personal services +69
Financial services +69
Paper and printing +36
Electronic equipment +89
Energy +24
The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn
( based on 2019 numbers)
where this from ?
I've only mentioned it about 20 times across numerous threads over the last year...
The impact assessment
"Do you have the UK governments official figures to back up this claim , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then
Sure (£m)
motor vehicles +202
Machinery +231
Services for business +212
Contruction+173
Other services +229
Public services +264
Retail and wholesale trade +341
Personal services +69
Financial services +69
Paper and printing +36
Electronic equipment +89
Energy +24
The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn
( based on 2019 numbers)
where this from ?
I've only mentioned it about 20 times across numerous threads over the last year...
The impact assessment
Do you have the UK governments official figures to back up this claim , "This is the official figures. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then
Sure (£m)
motor vehicles +202
Machinery +231
Services for business +212
Contruction+173
Other services +229
Public services +264
Retail and wholesale trade +341
Personal services +69
Financial services +69
Paper and printing +36
Electronic equipment +89
Energy +24
The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn
( based on 2019 numbers)
where this from ?
I've only mentioned it about 20 times across numerous threads over the last year...
The impact assessment
Do you have the UK governments official figures to back up this claim ,
This is the official figures."The government’s own calculations estimate that the deal will have a negligible long-term contribution to the British economy, forecasting it will increase UK GDP by only 0.08%, or £2.3bn a year, by 2035. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then
Sure (£m)
motor vehicles +202
Machinery +231
Services for business +212
Contruction+173
Other services +229
Public services +264
Retail and wholesale trade +341
Personal services +69
Financial services +69
Paper and printing +36
Electronic equipment +89
Energy +24
The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn
( based on 2019 numbers)
where this from ?
I've only mentioned it about 20 times across numerous threads over the last year...
The impact assessment
Do you have the UK governments official figures to back up this claim ,
This is the official figures.
The government’s own calculations estimate that the deal will have a negligible long-term contribution to the British economy, forecasting it will increase UK GDP by only 0.08%, or £2.3bn a year, by 2035. "Yes...that's an increase on growth no? As we have stated before it's a static model. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then
Sure (£m)
motor vehicles +202
Machinery +231
Services for business +212
Contruction+173
Other services +229
Public services +264
Retail and wholesale trade +341
Personal services +69
Financial services +69
Paper and printing +36
Electronic equipment +89
Energy +24
The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn
( based on 2019 numbers)
where this from ?
I've only mentioned it about 20 times across numerous threads over the last year...
The impact assessment
Do you have the UK governments official figures to back up this claim ,
This is the official figures.
The government’s own calculations estimate that the deal will have a negligible long-term contribution to the British economy, forecasting it will increase UK GDP by only 0.08%, or £2.3bn a year, by 2035.
Yes...that's an increase on growth no? As we have stated before it's a static model.
"0.08 % in 12 years | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then
Sure (£m)
motor vehicles +202
Machinery +231
Services for business +212
Contruction+173
Other services +229
Public services +264
Retail and wholesale trade +341
Personal services +69
Financial services +69
Paper and printing +36
Electronic equipment +89
Energy +24
The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn
( based on 2019 numbers)
where this from ?
I've only mentioned it about 20 times across numerous threads over the last year...
The impact assessment
"ah. I was looking at the gdp number not export. My mistake. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then
Sure (£m)
motor vehicles +202
Machinery +231
Services for business +212
Contruction+173
Other services +229
Public services +264
Retail and wholesale trade +341
Personal services +69
Financial services +69
Paper and printing +36
Electronic equipment +89
Energy +24
The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn
( based on 2019 numbers)
where this from ?
I've only mentioned it about 20 times across numerous threads over the last year...
The impact assessment
Do you have the UK governments official figures to back up this claim ,
This is the official figures.
The government’s own calculations estimate that the deal will have a negligible long-term contribution to the British economy, forecasting it will increase UK GDP by only 0.08%, or £2.3bn a year, by 2035.
Yes...that's an increase on growth no? As we have stated before it's a static model.
0.08 % in 12 years "As a base. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By the way what's your problem with gully? Cant refute what he posts?" Gully on Twitter, he is hilarious, just parrots and copies bull shit from other pro Brexit and Truss loons | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then
Sure (£m)
motor vehicles +202
Machinery +231
Services for business +212
Contruction+173
Other services +229
Public services +264
Retail and wholesale trade +341
Personal services +69
Financial services +69
Paper and printing +36
Electronic equipment +89
Energy +24
The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn
( based on 2019 numbers)
where this from ?
I've only mentioned it about 20 times across numerous threads over the last year...
The impact assessment
Do you have the UK governments official figures to back up this claim ,
This is the official figures.
The government’s own calculations estimate that the deal will have a negligible long-term contribution to the British economy, forecasting it will increase UK GDP by only 0.08%, or £2.3bn a year, by 2035.
Yes...that's an increase on growth no? As we have stated before it's a static model.
0.08 % in 12 years
As a base."Less than 0.01 % a year | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By the way what's your problem with gully? Cant refute what he posts? Gully on Twitter, he is hilarious, just parrots and copies bull shit from other pro Brexit and Truss loons "No he doesn't. Of his pinned threads which did he parrot from another account? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then
Sure (£m)
motor vehicles +202
Machinery +231
Services for business +212
Contruction+173
Other services +229
Public services +264
Retail and wholesale trade +341
Personal services +69
Financial services +69
Paper and printing +36
Electronic equipment +89
Energy +24
The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn
( based on 2019 numbers)
where this from ?
I've only mentioned it about 20 times across numerous threads over the last year...
The impact assessment
Do you have the UK governments official figures to back up this claim ,
This is the official figures.
The government’s own calculations estimate that the deal will have a negligible long-term contribution to the British economy, forecasting it will increase UK GDP by only 0.08%, or £2.3bn a year, by 2035.
Yes...that's an increase on growth no? As we have stated before it's a static model.
0.08 % in 12 years
As a base.
Less than 0.01 % a year "As a base. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By the way what's your problem with gully? Cant refute what he posts? Gully on Twitter, he is hilarious, just parrots and copies bull shit from other pro Brexit and Truss loons
No he doesn't.
Of his pinned threads which did he parrot from another account?"He/she has no credibility, just an unqualified truss/Brexit cult member shouting into an echo chamber, funny though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then
Sure (£m)
motor vehicles +202
Machinery +231
Services for business +212
Contruction+173
Other services +229
Public services +264
Retail and wholesale trade +341
Personal services +69
Financial services +69
Paper and printing +36
Electronic equipment +89
Energy +24
The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn
( based on 2019 numbers)
where this from ?
I've only mentioned it about 20 times across numerous threads over the last year...
The impact assessment
Do you have the UK governments official figures to back up this claim ,
This is the official figures.
The government’s own calculations estimate that the deal will have a negligible long-term contribution to the British economy, forecasting it will increase UK GDP by only 0.08%, or £2.3bn a year, by 2035.
Yes...that's an increase on growth no? As we have stated before it's a static model.
0.08 % in 12 years
As a base.
Less than 0.01 % a year
As a base."Small gains, poor deal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By the way what's your problem with gully? Cant refute what he posts? Gully on Twitter, he is hilarious, just parrots and copies bull shit from other pro Brexit and Truss loons
No he doesn't.
Of his pinned threads which did he parrot from another account?
He/she has no credibility, just an unqualified truss/Brexit cult member shouting into an echo chamber, funny though "Not what i asked and what you started originally? Which ones are parroted? You get another try. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then
Sure (£m)
motor vehicles +202
Machinery +231
Services for business +212
Contruction+173
Other services +229
Public services +264
Retail and wholesale trade +341
Personal services +69
Financial services +69
Paper and printing +36
Electronic equipment +89
Energy +24
The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn
( based on 2019 numbers)
where this from ?
I've only mentioned it about 20 times across numerous threads over the last year...
The impact assessment
Do you have the UK governments official figures to back up this claim ,
This is the official figures.
The government’s own calculations estimate that the deal will have a negligible long-term contribution to the British economy, forecasting it will increase UK GDP by only 0.08%, or £2.3bn a year, by 2035.
Yes...that's an increase on growth no? As we have stated before it's a static model.
0.08 % in 12 years
As a base.
Less than 0.01 % a year
As a base.
Small gains, poor deal. "Minimum gains. Good deal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then
Sure (£m)
motor vehicles +202
Machinery +231
Services for business +212
Contruction+173
Other services +229
Public services +264
Retail and wholesale trade +341
Personal services +69
Financial services +69
Paper and printing +36
Electronic equipment +89
Energy +24
The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn
( based on 2019 numbers)
where this from ?
I've only mentioned it about 20 times across numerous threads over the last year...
The impact assessment
Do you have the UK governments official figures to back up this claim ,
This is the official figures.
The government’s own calculations estimate that the deal will have a negligible long-term contribution to the British economy, forecasting it will increase UK GDP by only 0.08%, or £2.3bn a year, by 2035.
Yes...that's an increase on growth no? As we have stated before it's a static model.
0.08 % in 12 years
As a base.
Less than 0.01 % a year
As a base.
Small gains, poor deal.
Minimum gains. Good deal "Less than 0.01 % a year, anyway, it gives you something to ‘celebrate ‘ (at last) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By the way what's your problem with gully? Cant refute what he posts? Gully on Twitter, he is hilarious, just parrots and copies bull shit from other pro Brexit and Truss loons
No he doesn't.
Of his pinned threads which did he parrot from another account?
He/she has no credibility, just an unqualified truss/Brexit cult member shouting into an echo chamber, funny though
Not what i asked and what you started originally?
Which ones are parroted?
You get another try.
"Go and read, the poor fool is celebrating a possible trade deal with Colorado, ignoring the fact the USA trade deal is dead, hilarious | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then
Sure (£m)
motor vehicles +202
Machinery +231
Services for business +212
Contruction+173
Other services +229
Public services +264
Retail and wholesale trade +341
Personal services +69
Financial services +69
Paper and printing +36
Electronic equipment +89
Energy +24
The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn
( based on 2019 numbers)
where this from ?
I've only mentioned it about 20 times across numerous threads over the last year...
The impact assessment
Do you have the UK governments official figures to back up this claim ,
This is the official figures.
The government’s own calculations estimate that the deal will have a negligible long-term contribution to the British economy, forecasting it will increase UK GDP by only 0.08%, or £2.3bn a year, by 2035.
Yes...that's an increase on growth no? As we have stated before it's a static model.
0.08 % in 12 years
As a base.
Less than 0.01 % a year
As a base.
Small gains, poor deal.
Minimum gains. Good deal
Less than 0.01 % a year, anyway, it gives you something to ‘celebrate ‘ (at last) "And yet. People on here said we were taken for a ride by Australia and they got the better deal( demonstrably u true from The impact assessment) Some even said they didn't believe we'd sign either into parliament. Some believed it would mean hormone beef etc ( again demonstrably untrue) So many bitter minds in here still | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then
Sure (£m)
motor vehicles +202
Machinery +231
Services for business +212
Contruction+173
Other services +229
Public services +264
Retail and wholesale trade +341
Personal services +69
Financial services +69
Paper and printing +36
Electronic equipment +89
Energy +24
The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn
( based on 2019 numbers)
where this from ?
I've only mentioned it about 20 times across numerous threads over the last year...
The impact assessment
Do you have the UK governments official figures to back up this claim ,
This is the official figures.
The government’s own calculations estimate that the deal will have a negligible long-term contribution to the British economy, forecasting it will increase UK GDP by only 0.08%, or £2.3bn a year, by 2035.
Yes...that's an increase on growth no? As we have stated before it's a static model.
0.08 % in 12 years
As a base.
Less than 0.01 % a year
As a base.
Small gains, poor deal.
Minimum gains. Good deal
Less than 0.01 % a year, anyway, it gives you something to ‘celebrate ‘ (at last)
And yet. People on here said we were taken for a ride by Australia and they got the better deal( demonstrably u true from The impact assessment)
Some even said they didn't believe we'd sign either into parliament.
Some believed it would mean hormone beef etc ( again demonstrably untrue)
So many bitter minds in here still"So you are celebrating a less than 0.01 % gain? Fair play | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By the way what's your problem with gully? Cant refute what he posts? Gully on Twitter, he is hilarious, just parrots and copies bull shit from other pro Brexit and Truss loons
No he doesn't.
Of his pinned threads which did he parrot from another account?
He/she has no credibility, just an unqualified truss/Brexit cult member shouting into an echo chamber, funny though
Not what i asked and what you started originally?
Which ones are parroted?
You get another try.
Go and read, the poor fool is celebrating a possible trade deal with Colorado, ignoring the fact the USA trade deal is dead, hilarious "Aaaaah you didn't read then. You realise you can do deals at state level right? They don't have to be full ftas. Bless you and your ignorance. He even explained that in his tweets about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By the way what's your problem with gully? Cant refute what he posts? Gully on Twitter, he is hilarious, just parrots and copies bull shit from other pro Brexit and Truss loons
No he doesn't.
Of his pinned threads which did he parrot from another account?
He/she has no credibility, just an unqualified truss/Brexit cult member shouting into an echo chamber, funny though
Not what i asked and what you started originally?
Which ones are parroted?
You get another try.
Go and read, the poor fool is celebrating a possible trade deal with Colorado, ignoring the fact the USA trade deal is dead, hilarious
Aaaaah you didn't read then.
You realise you can do deals at state level right? They don't have to be full ftas.
Bless you and your ignorance.
He even explained that in his tweets about it.
"Anyway, let’s not get distracted by talking about an educated fool on Twitter with only 7,000 followers, let’s stick to credible sources, not charlatans | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Remember when you are talking about the above. He is retreating America and UK sources of local and country wide government. You see to be arguing with the uk and colorsdo government official that we can sign mou's liberalising trade." Anyway, let’s not get distracted by talking about an educated fool on Twitter with only 7,000 followers, let’s stick to credible sources, not a charlatans , back to the OP | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As stated. His source is the uk gov and colorado gov. He links to their site." Back to the OP, and credible sources | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat." No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ? "It's not just colorado. Have a deeper dive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive. "I will be watching his/her posts and your posts on here with interest | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive.
I will be watching his/her posts and your posts on here with interest "Gully can’t be credible in Morley’s eyes as he doesn’t have “significant followers” because Morley said that is over 10k but Gully is c.7k so clearly a nobody! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive.
I will be watching his/her posts and your posts on here with interest
Gully can’t be credible in Morley’s eyes as he doesn’t have “significant followers” because Morley said that is over 10k but Gully is c.7k so clearly a nobody!"True, and the IMF has 2.1 million followers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive.
I will be watching his/her posts and your posts on here with interest
Gully can’t be credible in Morley’s eyes as he doesn’t have “significant followers” because Morley said that is over 10k but Gully is c.7k so clearly a nobody!
True, and the IMF has 2.1 million followers "Those charlatans! Pah! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive.
I will be watching his/her posts and your posts on here with interest
Gully can’t be credible in Morley’s eyes as he doesn’t have “significant followers” because Morley said that is over 10k but Gully is c.7k so clearly a nobody!"Nope remember you were told by other people you read that wrong.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive.
I will be watching his/her posts and your posts on here with interest
Gully can’t be credible in Morley’s eyes as he doesn’t have “significant followers” because Morley said that is over 10k but Gully is c.7k so clearly a nobody!
Nope remember you were told by other people you read that wrong. "Nope I was told by one person (not people) and they were wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive.
I will be watching his/her posts and your posts on here with interest
Gully can’t be credible in Morley’s eyes as he doesn’t have “significant followers” because Morley said that is over 10k but Gully is c.7k so clearly a nobody!
Nope remember you were told by other people you read that wrong.
Nope I was told by one person (not people) and they were wrong. "If you need to.tell yourself that. While we all cringe. Go ahead. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive.
I will be watching his/her posts and your posts on here with interest
Gully can’t be credible in Morley’s eyes as he doesn’t have “significant followers” because Morley said that is over 10k but Gully is c.7k so clearly a nobody!
Nope remember you were told by other people you read that wrong.
Nope I was told by one person (not people) and they were wrong.
If you need to.tell yourself that.
While we all cringe. Go ahead." you’re a funny guy. Nobody is cringing. You made a quantifiable qualifying statement. It was quite clear you were bigging yourself up and it backfired. Just admit it. No shame in owning your mistakes!
So you have more followers than Shah or Gully! Amazing! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive.
I will be watching his/her posts and your posts on here with interest
Gully can’t be credible in Morley’s eyes as he doesn’t have “significant followers” because Morley said that is over 10k but Gully is c.7k so clearly a nobody!
Nope remember you were told by other people you read that wrong.
Nope I was told by one person (not people) and they were wrong.
If you need to.tell yourself that.
While we all cringe. Go ahead.
you’re a funny guy. Nobody is cringing. You made a quantifiable qualifying statement. It was quite clear you were bigging yourself up and it backfired. Just admit it. No shame in owning your mistakes!
So you have more followers than Shah or Gully! Amazing!"only quite clear to you. Others attempted to correct you. You wouldn't have it and were too proud to retract your claim so you've trundled on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive.
I will be watching his/her posts and your posts on here with interest
Gully can’t be credible in Morley’s eyes as he doesn’t have “significant followers” because Morley said that is over 10k but Gully is c.7k so clearly a nobody!
Nope remember you were told by other people you read that wrong.
Nope I was told by one person (not people) and they were wrong. "I dispute that comment. What I can say though is this place really has gone to shit and is now just troll after troll  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive.
I will be watching his/her posts and your posts on here with interest
Gully can’t be credible in Morley’s eyes as he doesn’t have “significant followers” because Morley said that is over 10k but Gully is c.7k so clearly a nobody!
Nope remember you were told by other people you read that wrong.
Nope I was told by one person (not people) and they were wrong.
If you need to.tell yourself that.
While we all cringe. Go ahead.
you’re a funny guy. Nobody is cringing. You made a quantifiable qualifying statement. It was quite clear you were bigging yourself up and it backfired. Just admit it. No shame in owning your mistakes!
So you have more followers than Shah or Gully! Amazing!only quite clear to you. Others attempted to correct you. You wouldn't have it and were too proud to retract your claim so you've trundled on."Nah you were totally bigging yourself up. You’re good with numbers, I am good with words and behavioural science. I can see the patterns. It’s fine you do you  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive.
I will be watching his/her posts and your posts on here with interest
Gully can’t be credible in Morley’s eyes as he doesn’t have “significant followers” because Morley said that is over 10k but Gully is c.7k so clearly a nobody!
Nope remember you were told by other people you read that wrong.
Nope I was told by one person (not people) and they were wrong.
I dispute that comment.
What I can say though is this place really has gone to shit and is now just troll after troll "Which bit do you dispute
But yeah trolling is getting increasingly bad. It happens when people are totally dogmatic and unable to have a nuanced conversation.
For the benefit of thread length I will try to stop anything like that for my part. If others continue I may start again though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive.
I will be watching his/her posts and your posts on here with interest
Gully can’t be credible in Morley’s eyes as he doesn’t have “significant followers” because Morley said that is over 10k but Gully is c.7k so clearly a nobody!
Nope remember you were told by other people you read that wrong.
Nope I was told by one person (not people) and they were wrong.
I dispute that comment.
What I can say though is this place really has gone to shit and is now just troll after troll
Which bit do you dispute
But yeah trolling is getting increasingly bad. It happens when people are totally dogmatic and unable to have a nuanced conversation.
For the benefit of thread length I will try to stop anything like that for my part. If others continue I may start again though ""Nope I was told by one person (not people) and they were wrong." This bit, I felt you read way to much into the 10k 'credential' thing. I'm also guilty of trolling now and then but it appears that's all some do | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive.
I will be watching his/her posts and your posts on here with interest
Gully can’t be credible in Morley’s eyes as he doesn’t have “significant followers” because Morley said that is over 10k but Gully is c.7k so clearly a nobody!
Nope remember you were told by other people you read that wrong.
Nope I was told by one person (not people) and they were wrong.
I dispute that comment.
What I can say though is this place really has gone to shit and is now just troll after troll
Which bit do you dispute
But yeah trolling is getting increasingly bad. It happens when people are totally dogmatic and unable to have a nuanced conversation.
For the benefit of thread length I will try to stop anything like that for my part. If others continue I may start again though
"Nope I was told by one person (not people) and they were wrong."
This bit, I felt you read way to much into the 10k 'credential' thing.
I'm also guilty of trolling now and then but it appears that's all some do" yeah just you and you were wrong
You aren’t often wrong but on that you were  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then
Sure (£m)
motor vehicles +202
Machinery +231
Services for business +212
Contruction+173
Other services +229
Public services +264
Retail and wholesale trade +341
Personal services +69
Financial services +69
Paper and printing +36
Electronic equipment +89
Energy +24
The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn
( based on 2019 numbers)
where this from ?
I've only mentioned it about 20 times across numerous threads over the last year...
The impact assessment
Do you have the UK governments official figures to back up this claim ,
This is the official figures.
The government’s own calculations estimate that the deal will have a negligible long-term contribution to the British economy, forecasting it will increase UK GDP by only 0.08%, or £2.3bn a year, by 2035.
Yes...that's an increase on growth no? As we have stated before it's a static model.
0.08 % in 12 years
As a base.
Less than 0.01 % a year
As a base.
Small gains, poor deal.
Minimum gains. Good deal
Less than 0.01 % a year, anyway, it gives you something to ‘celebrate ‘ (at last)
And yet. People on here said we were taken for a ride by Australia and they got the better deal( demonstrably u true from The impact assessment)
Some even said they didn't believe we'd sign either into parliament.
Some believed it would mean hormone beef etc ( again demonstrably untrue)
So many bitter minds in here still"This isn't true is it? "Australia to enjoy exports boost six times greater than UK from trade deal, experts say" "UK sales will grow by just 0.35 per cent from the agreement, the UK Trade Policy Observatory (UKTPO) forecasts – compared with a 2.2 per cent jump for Australia’s businesses." "“These are very small numbers,” said Professor Michael Gasiorek, director of the observatory at the University of Sussex, adding: “We see a bigger positive effect for Australia than for the UK.” The conclusions come after the government admitted the average household would be just £1.20 a year better off from the deal, which would boost GDP by only 0.02 per cent over 15 years." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/australia-uk-trade-deal-exports-truss-b1869879.html Since revised down. The Lowy Institute (a pretty right wing Australian think tank) views it like this: Australia sweeps the table in the UK trade deal" Remarkably, it is not clear what UK negotiators managed to extract in reciprocal concessions. Sure Australia has agreed to eliminate its own tariffs, but that is somewhat like landlocked Switzerland offering to eliminate its navy. Unlike the UK, which has some formidable tariff walls around agriculture, Australia’s tariffs are incredibly low and their elimination is unlikely to change anyone’s commercial calculus." "nterpreter Australia sweeps the table in the UK trade deal DMITRY GROZOUBINSKI Tariff elimination on this scale through a free trade agreement is almost unprecedented. Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison meeting with British counterpart Boris Johnson in London this month (Andrew Parsons/No 10 Downing Street/Flickr) Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison meeting with British counterpart Boris Johnson in London this month (Andrew Parsons/No 10 Downing Street/Flickr) Published 24 Jun 2021 Trade Free Trade Australia Follow @DmitryOpines Australian trade negotiators often enter talks with difficult demands and a comparatively weak hand. Agriculture, where they seek concessions from the other side, is politically sensitive meaning they are asking their counterparts to do what is hard. In exchange, they have little to offer because the Australian economy is already largely liberalised in all the ways governments are willing to tolerate. So their success in the recent Australia-UK Free Trade negotiations: agreement in principle, secured charging uphill without ammunition, is therefore all the more remarkable. Upon entry into force the agreement eliminates all tariffs and quotas except, for some reason, long-grain rice. It does so almost immediately. There are phase in schedules and a handful of safeguards, to be sure, but they are so generous it is impossible to imagine their ever limiting Australia’s exports in practice. It is hard to overstate this achievement by the Australian negotiating team. Trade ministries love to put out press releases claiming their recent deal eliminates “99% of tariffs,” but in most cases, this is numerical trickery, either because the partner in question had so few tariffs to begin with (such as Singapore or New Zealand) or because the final 1% contains much of what would actually be commercially meaningful. Not this time. This deal does what it says on the tin. Tariff elimination on this scale through a free trade agreement is almost unprecedented. Australia did not achieve it with Japan through JAEPA, China through CHAFTA, South Korea through KAFTA or the United States through AUSFTA. It is more than Australia secured from the parties in the CPTPP or those in RCEP, and is likely to substantially exceed what Australia gets in its EU negotiations. Remarkably, it is not clear what UK negotiators managed to extract in reciprocal concessions. Sure Australia has agreed to eliminate its own tariffs, but that is somewhat like landlocked Switzerland offering to eliminate its navy. Unlike the UK, which has some formidable tariff walls around agriculture, Australia’s tariffs are incredibly low and their elimination is unlikely to change anyone’s commercial calculus. Australia did concede to expand the “working holiday youth mobility program” for UK nationals. The duration is to be extended from two years to three, the age of eligibility expanded to 35 and the second year requirement to spend months working in the Australian outback has been dropped. There was also some mutual qualification recognition, or at least the processes to achieve them, and we can reasonably expect Australia to ease Foreign Investment Review Board screening for British capital. All good outcomes for the United Kingdom but hardly a triumph. Domestically, the UK government has taken somewhat inconsistent approaches to explaining its unexpected bout of generosity. To farmers and their representatives, apoplectic about this deal, it has argued that Australian produce is unlikely to flood into the UK market, citing existing trading patterns and strong demand closer to home. It has also pointed repeatedly to its refusal to remove sanitary and phytosanitary bans in areas such as beef with artificial hormones as evidence of its having successfully defended British interests. Whatever the explanation for the UK’s generosity of spirit in this negotiation, Australian producers stand to benefit. Conversely, in media commentary, press releases, and speaking to its more libertarian members the UK government primarily emphasised the benefits to consumers of cheaper or at least more plentiful access to Australian products, from Tim Tam biscuits to steaks. These points are obviously contradictory. Any surge of Australian products large enough to depress prices will by definition hurt local British producers, but if no such surge eventuates then the benefits to consumers are likely to be marginal. More neutral observers have suggested that the Boris Johnson government’s calculus in reaching agreement in principle, and doing so this quickly, may have had non-trade motives. Brexit, and more recently a harder Brexit beyond the EU Single Market and Customs Union were sold partially on the prospects of a free trade globally buccaneering Britain." "The chips on the table were tariffs, and Australia seems poised to walk away with all of them." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive. "This is from the Baker Institute on Public Policy at Rice University: "This language and the Commerce Clause would prevent Texas (or any other state) and the UK from entering into any formal international agreement that would, inter alia, affect tariffs or any similar charges or anything that clearly falls under the definitions of “commerce,” “treaty,” or “agreement.” However, there have been multiple instances where U.S. states have entered into less formal arrangements, often termed “memoranda of understanding” (MOUs), with foreign states or governments that appear to have been generally accepted if they are considered non-binding." "One obvious question is whether a UK-Texas MOU along these lines would have any economic significance as opposed to political benefits for both parties. The answer is probably “not a great deal.”" Get as excited as you like. There is precious little to get excited about in all of this. Aspiration and politics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive.
I will be watching his/her posts and your posts on here with interest
Gully can’t be credible in Morley’s eyes as he doesn’t have “significant followers” because Morley said that is over 10k but Gully is c.7k so clearly a nobody!
Nope remember you were told by other people you read that wrong.
Nope I was told by one person (not people) and they were wrong.
I dispute that comment.
What I can say though is this place really has gone to shit and is now just troll after troll
Which bit do you dispute
But yeah trolling is getting increasingly bad. It happens when people are totally dogmatic and unable to have a nuanced conversation.
For the benefit of thread length I will try to stop anything like that for my part. If others continue I may start again though
"Nope I was told by one person (not people) and they were wrong."
This bit, I felt you read way to much into the 10k 'credential' thing.
I'm also guilty of trolling now and then but it appears that's all some do
yeah just you and you were wrong
You aren’t often wrong but on that you were "In your opinion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive.
I will be watching his/her posts and your posts on here with interest
Gully can’t be credible in Morley’s eyes as he doesn’t have “significant followers” because Morley said that is over 10k but Gully is c.7k so clearly a nobody!
Nope remember you were told by other people you read that wrong.
Nope I was told by one person (not people) and they were wrong.
I dispute that comment.
What I can say though is this place really has gone to shit and is now just troll after troll
Which bit do you dispute
But yeah trolling is getting increasingly bad. It happens when people are totally dogmatic and unable to have a nuanced conversation.
For the benefit of thread length I will try to stop anything like that for my part. If others continue I may start again though "Particularly when they accuse you of something and misread and can't take back their claim | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then
Sure (£m)
motor vehicles +202
Machinery +231
Services for business +212
Contruction+173
Other services +229
Public services +264
Retail and wholesale trade +341
Personal services +69
Financial services +69
Paper and printing +36
Electronic equipment +89
Energy +24
The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn
( based on 2019 numbers)
where this from ?
I've only mentioned it about 20 times across numerous threads over the last year...
The impact assessment
Do you have the UK governments official figures to back up this claim ,
This is the official figures.
The government’s own calculations estimate that the deal will have a negligible long-term contribution to the British economy, forecasting it will increase UK GDP by only 0.08%, or £2.3bn a year, by 2035.
Yes...that's an increase on growth no? As we have stated before it's a static model.
0.08 % in 12 years
As a base.
Less than 0.01 % a year
As a base.
Small gains, poor deal.
Minimum gains. Good deal
Less than 0.01 % a year, anyway, it gives you something to ‘celebrate ‘ (at last)
And yet. People on here said we were taken for a ride by Australia and they got the better deal( demonstrably u true from The impact assessment)
Some even said they didn't believe we'd sign either into parliament.
Some believed it would mean hormone beef etc ( again demonstrably untrue)
So many bitter minds in here still
This isn't true is it?
"Australia to enjoy exports boost six times greater than UK from trade deal, experts say"
"UK sales will grow by just 0.35 per cent from the agreement, the UK Trade Policy Observatory (UKTPO) forecasts – compared with a 2.2 per cent jump for Australia’s businesses."
"“These are very small numbers,” said Professor Michael Gasiorek, director of the observatory at the University of Sussex, adding: “We see a bigger positive effect for Australia than for the UK.”
The conclusions come after the government admitted the average household would be just £1.20 a year better off from the deal, which would boost GDP by only 0.02 per cent over 15 years."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/australia-uk-trade-deal-exports-truss-b1869879.html
Since revised down.
The Lowy Institute (a pretty right wing Australian think tank) views it like this:
Australia sweeps
the table in the
UK trade deal"
Remarkably, it is not clear what UK negotiators managed to extract in reciprocal concessions. Sure Australia has agreed to eliminate its own tariffs, but that is somewhat like landlocked Switzerland offering to eliminate its navy. Unlike the UK, which has some formidable tariff walls around agriculture, Australia’s tariffs are incredibly low and their elimination is unlikely to change anyone’s commercial calculus."
"nterpreter
Australia sweeps
the table in the
UK trade deal
DMITRY GROZOUBINSKI
Tariff elimination on this scale
through a free trade agreement
is almost unprecedented.
Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison meeting with British counterpart Boris Johnson in London this month (Andrew Parsons/No 10 Downing Street/Flickr)
Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison meeting with British counterpart Boris Johnson in London this month (Andrew Parsons/No 10 Downing Street/Flickr)
Published 24 Jun 2021 Trade Free Trade Australia Follow @DmitryOpines
Australian trade negotiators often enter talks with difficult demands and a comparatively weak hand. Agriculture, where they seek concessions from the other side, is politically sensitive meaning they are asking their counterparts to do what is hard. In exchange, they have little to offer because the Australian economy is already largely liberalised in all the ways governments are willing to tolerate. So their success in the recent Australia-UK Free Trade negotiations: agreement in principle, secured charging uphill without ammunition, is therefore all the more remarkable.
Upon entry into force the agreement eliminates all tariffs and quotas except, for some reason, long-grain rice. It does so almost immediately. There are phase in schedules and a handful of safeguards, to be sure, but they are so generous it is impossible to imagine their ever limiting Australia’s exports in practice.
It is hard to overstate this achievement by the Australian negotiating team. Trade ministries love to put out press releases claiming their recent deal eliminates “99% of tariffs,” but in most cases, this is numerical trickery, either because the partner in question had so few tariffs to begin with (such as Singapore or New Zealand) or because the final 1% contains much of what would actually be commercially meaningful. Not this time. This deal does what it says on the tin.
Tariff elimination on this scale through a free trade agreement is almost unprecedented. Australia did not achieve it with Japan through JAEPA, China through CHAFTA, South Korea through KAFTA or the United States through AUSFTA. It is more than Australia secured from the parties in the CPTPP or those in RCEP, and is likely to substantially exceed what Australia gets in its EU negotiations.
Remarkably, it is not clear what UK negotiators managed to extract in reciprocal concessions. Sure Australia has agreed to eliminate its own tariffs, but that is somewhat like landlocked Switzerland offering to eliminate its navy. Unlike the UK, which has some formidable tariff walls around agriculture, Australia’s tariffs are incredibly low and their elimination is unlikely to change anyone’s commercial calculus.
Australia did concede to expand the “working holiday youth mobility program” for UK nationals. The duration is to be extended from two years to three, the age of eligibility expanded to 35 and the second year requirement to spend months working in the Australian outback has been dropped. There was also some mutual qualification recognition, or at least the processes to achieve them, and we can reasonably expect Australia to ease Foreign Investment Review Board screening for British capital. All good outcomes for the United Kingdom but hardly a triumph.
Domestically, the UK government has taken somewhat inconsistent approaches to explaining its unexpected bout of generosity. To farmers and their representatives, apoplectic about this deal, it has argued that Australian produce is unlikely to flood into the UK market, citing existing trading patterns and strong demand closer to home. It has also pointed repeatedly to its refusal to remove sanitary and phytosanitary bans in areas such as beef with artificial hormones as evidence of its having successfully defended British interests.
Whatever the explanation for the UK’s generosity of spirit in this negotiation, Australian producers stand to benefit.
Conversely, in media commentary, press releases, and speaking to its more libertarian members the UK government primarily emphasised the benefits to consumers of cheaper or at least more plentiful access to Australian products, from Tim Tam biscuits to steaks.
These points are obviously contradictory. Any surge of Australian products large enough to depress prices will by definition hurt local British producers, but if no such surge eventuates then the benefits to consumers are likely to be marginal.
More neutral observers have suggested that the Boris Johnson government’s calculus in reaching agreement in principle, and doing so this quickly, may have had non-trade motives. Brexit, and more recently a harder Brexit beyond the EU Single Market and Customs Union were sold partially on the prospects of a free trade globally buccaneering Britain."
"The chips on the table were tariffs, and Australia seems poised to walk away with all of them." "I stead of just a waffle copy paste of stuff you havent read. Which bit wasn't true. Pick aparticular bit to point out. The highlight which part of your copy past waffle you think proves it wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive.
This is from the Baker Institute on Public Policy at Rice University:
"This language and the Commerce Clause would prevent Texas (or any other state) and the UK from entering into any formal international agreement that would, inter alia, affect tariffs or any similar charges or anything that clearly falls under the definitions of “commerce,” “treaty,” or “agreement.”
However, there have been multiple instances where U.S. states have entered into less formal arrangements, often termed “memoranda of understanding” (MOUs), with foreign states or governments that appear to have been generally accepted if they are considered non-binding."
"One obvious question is whether a UK-Texas MOU along these lines would have any economic significance as opposed to political benefits for both parties. The answer is probably “not a great deal.”"
Get as excited as you like. There is precious little to get excited about in all of this.
Aspiration and politics."So the mous can be signed for improvement in trade and I vestments without an fta. Thanks for backing up what I said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then
Sure (£m)
motor vehicles +202
Machinery +231
Services for business +212
Contruction+173
Other services +229
Public services +264
Retail and wholesale trade +341
Personal services +69
Financial services +69
Paper and printing +36
Electronic equipment +89
Energy +24
The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn
( based on 2019 numbers)
where this from ?
I've only mentioned it about 20 times across numerous threads over the last year...
The impact assessment
Do you have the UK governments official figures to back up this claim ,
This is the official figures.
The government’s own calculations estimate that the deal will have a negligible long-term contribution to the British economy, forecasting it will increase UK GDP by only 0.08%, or £2.3bn a year, by 2035.
Yes...that's an increase on growth no? As we have stated before it's a static model.
0.08 % in 12 years
As a base.
Less than 0.01 % a year
As a base.
Small gains, poor deal.
Minimum gains. Good deal
Less than 0.01 % a year, anyway, it gives you something to ‘celebrate ‘ (at last)
And yet. People on here said we were taken for a ride by Australia and they got the better deal( demonstrably u true from The impact assessment)
Some even said they didn't believe we'd sign either into parliament.
Some believed it would mean hormone beef etc ( again demonstrably untrue)
So many bitter minds in here still
This isn't true is it?
"Australia to enjoy exports boost six times greater than UK from trade deal, experts say"
"UK sales will grow by just 0.35 per cent from the agreement, the UK Trade Policy Observatory (UKTPO) forecasts – compared with a 2.2 per cent jump for Australia’s businesses."
"“These are very small numbers,” said Professor Michael Gasiorek, director of the observatory at the University of Sussex, adding: “We see a bigger positive effect for Australia than for the UK.”
The conclusions come after the government admitted the average household would be just £1.20 a year better off from the deal, which would boost GDP by only 0.02 per cent over 15 years."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/australia-uk-trade-deal-exports-truss-b1869879.html
Since revised down.
The Lowy Institute (a pretty right wing Australian think tank) views it like this:
Australia sweeps
the table in the
UK trade deal"
Remarkably, it is not clear what UK negotiators managed to extract in reciprocal concessions. Sure Australia has agreed to eliminate its own tariffs, but that is somewhat like landlocked Switzerland offering to eliminate its navy. Unlike the UK, which has some formidable tariff walls around agriculture, Australia’s tariffs are incredibly low and their elimination is unlikely to change anyone’s commercial calculus."
"nterpreter
Australia sweeps
the table in the
UK trade deal
DMITRY GROZOUBINSKI
Tariff elimination on this scale
through a free trade agreement
is almost unprecedented.
Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison meeting with British counterpart Boris Johnson in London this month (Andrew Parsons/No 10 Downing Street/Flickr)
Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison meeting with British counterpart Boris Johnson in London this month (Andrew Parsons/No 10 Downing Street/Flickr)
Published 24 Jun 2021 Trade Free Trade Australia Follow @DmitryOpines
Australian trade negotiators often enter talks with difficult demands and a comparatively weak hand. Agriculture, where they seek concessions from the other side, is politically sensitive meaning they are asking their counterparts to do what is hard. In exchange, they have little to offer because the Australian economy is already largely liberalised in all the ways governments are willing to tolerate. So their success in the recent Australia-UK Free Trade negotiations: agreement in principle, secured charging uphill without ammunition, is therefore all the more remarkable.
Upon entry into force the agreement eliminates all tariffs and quotas except, for some reason, long-grain rice. It does so almost immediately. There are phase in schedules and a handful of safeguards, to be sure, but they are so generous it is impossible to imagine their ever limiting Australia’s exports in practice.
It is hard to overstate this achievement by the Australian negotiating team. Trade ministries love to put out press releases claiming their recent deal eliminates “99% of tariffs,” but in most cases, this is numerical trickery, either because the partner in question had so few tariffs to begin with (such as Singapore or New Zealand) or because the final 1% contains much of what would actually be commercially meaningful. Not this time. This deal does what it says on the tin.
Tariff elimination on this scale through a free trade agreement is almost unprecedented. Australia did not achieve it with Japan through JAEPA, China through CHAFTA, South Korea through KAFTA or the United States through AUSFTA. It is more than Australia secured from the parties in the CPTPP or those in RCEP, and is likely to substantially exceed what Australia gets in its EU negotiations.
Remarkably, it is not clear what UK negotiators managed to extract in reciprocal concessions. Sure Australia has agreed to eliminate its own tariffs, but that is somewhat like landlocked Switzerland offering to eliminate its navy. Unlike the UK, which has some formidable tariff walls around agriculture, Australia’s tariffs are incredibly low and their elimination is unlikely to change anyone’s commercial calculus.
Australia did concede to expand the “working holiday youth mobility program” for UK nationals. The duration is to be extended from two years to three, the age of eligibility expanded to 35 and the second year requirement to spend months working in the Australian outback has been dropped. There was also some mutual qualification recognition, or at least the processes to achieve them, and we can reasonably expect Australia to ease Foreign Investment Review Board screening for British capital. All good outcomes for the United Kingdom but hardly a triumph.
Domestically, the UK government has taken somewhat inconsistent approaches to explaining its unexpected bout of generosity. To farmers and their representatives, apoplectic about this deal, it has argued that Australian produce is unlikely to flood into the UK market, citing existing trading patterns and strong demand closer to home. It has also pointed repeatedly to its refusal to remove sanitary and phytosanitary bans in areas such as beef with artificial hormones as evidence of its having successfully defended British interests.
Whatever the explanation for the UK’s generosity of spirit in this negotiation, Australian producers stand to benefit.
Conversely, in media commentary, press releases, and speaking to its more libertarian members the UK government primarily emphasised the benefits to consumers of cheaper or at least more plentiful access to Australian products, from Tim Tam biscuits to steaks.
These points are obviously contradictory. Any surge of Australian products large enough to depress prices will by definition hurt local British producers, but if no such surge eventuates then the benefits to consumers are likely to be marginal.
More neutral observers have suggested that the Boris Johnson government’s calculus in reaching agreement in principle, and doing so this quickly, may have had non-trade motives. Brexit, and more recently a harder Brexit beyond the EU Single Market and Customs Union were sold partially on the prospects of a free trade globally buccaneering Britain."
"The chips on the table were tariffs, and Australia seems poised to walk away with all of them."
I stead of just a waffle copy paste of stuff you havent read.
Which bit wasn't true.
Pick aparticular bit to point out. The highlight which part of your copy past waffle you think proves it wrong.
"Of course I cut and pasted it. I also read it. The Australians are laughing. I know you love to discuss individual words and sentences when the overall argument completely contradicts you. It's a juvenile way to argue. Nobody except for the UK Government thinks that it was a good deal for the UK. George Eustice: "The first step is to recognise that the Australia trade deal is not actually a very good deal for the UK, which was not for lack of trying on my part." "Overall, the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return. "We did not actually need to give Australia nor New Zealand full liberalisation of beef and sheep. It was not in our economic interests to do so. And neither Australia nor New Zealand had anything to offer in return for such a grand concession. "The UK went into this negotiation holding the strongest hand, the best cards, but at some point in early summer 2021, the then trade secretary took a decision to set an arbitrary target to conclude it by G7. From that moment we were on the back foot. "At one point the then trade secretary asked her opposite number from Australia what he would need in order to conclude an agreement by G7 and of course he then set out his terms which eventually shaped the deal. We must never repeat that mistake." https://news.sky.com/story/george-eustice-brands-australia-free-trade-deal-a-failure-in-brutal-swipe-at-liz-truss-12747723 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive.
This is from the Baker Institute on Public Policy at Rice University:
"This language and the Commerce Clause would prevent Texas (or any other state) and the UK from entering into any formal international agreement that would, inter alia, affect tariffs or any similar charges or anything that clearly falls under the definitions of “commerce,” “treaty,” or “agreement.”
However, there have been multiple instances where U.S. states have entered into less formal arrangements, often termed “memoranda of understanding” (MOUs), with foreign states or governments that appear to have been generally accepted if they are considered non-binding."
"One obvious question is whether a UK-Texas MOU along these lines would have any economic significance as opposed to political benefits for both parties. The answer is probably “not a great deal.”"
Get as excited as you like. There is precious little to get excited about in all of this.
Aspiration and politics.
So the mous can be signed for improvement in trade and I vestments without an fta.
Thanks for backing up what I said. "You can sign any non-binding agreement that you like to window-dress. You can invest what you like now. I didn't say that wasn't possible, but good "win". Congrats. "One obvious question is whether a UK-Texas MOU along these lines would have any economic significance as opposed to political benefits for both parties. The answer is probably “not a great deal.”" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then
Sure (£m)
motor vehicles +202
Machinery +231
Services for business +212
Contruction+173
Other services +229
Public services +264
Retail and wholesale trade +341
Personal services +69
Financial services +69
Paper and printing +36
Electronic equipment +89
Energy +24
The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn
( based on 2019 numbers)
where this from ?
I've only mentioned it about 20 times across numerous threads over the last year...
The impact assessment
Do you have the UK governments official figures to back up this claim ,
This is the official figures.
The government’s own calculations estimate that the deal will have a negligible long-term contribution to the British economy, forecasting it will increase UK GDP by only 0.08%, or £2.3bn a year, by 2035.
Yes...that's an increase on growth no? As we have stated before it's a static model.
0.08 % in 12 years
As a base.
Less than 0.01 % a year
As a base.
Small gains, poor deal.
Minimum gains. Good deal
Less than 0.01 % a year, anyway, it gives you something to ‘celebrate ‘ (at last)
And yet. People on here said we were taken for a ride by Australia and they got the better deal( demonstrably u true from The impact assessment)
Some even said they didn't believe we'd sign either into parliament.
Some believed it would mean hormone beef etc ( again demonstrably untrue)
So many bitter minds in here still
This isn't true is it?
"Australia to enjoy exports boost six times greater than UK from trade deal, experts say"
"UK sales will grow by just 0.35 per cent from the agreement, the UK Trade Policy Observatory (UKTPO) forecasts – compared with a 2.2 per cent jump for Australia’s businesses."
"“These are very small numbers,” said Professor Michael Gasiorek, director of the observatory at the University of Sussex, adding: “We see a bigger positive effect for Australia than for the UK.”
The conclusions come after the government admitted the average household would be just £1.20 a year better off from the deal, which would boost GDP by only 0.02 per cent over 15 years."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/australia-uk-trade-deal-exports-truss-b1869879.html
Since revised down.
The Lowy Institute (a pretty right wing Australian think tank) views it like this:
Australia sweeps
the table in the
UK trade deal"
Remarkably, it is not clear what UK negotiators managed to extract in reciprocal concessions. Sure Australia has agreed to eliminate its own tariffs, but that is somewhat like landlocked Switzerland offering to eliminate its navy. Unlike the UK, which has some formidable tariff walls around agriculture, Australia’s tariffs are incredibly low and their elimination is unlikely to change anyone’s commercial calculus."
"nterpreter
Australia sweeps
the table in the
UK trade deal
DMITRY GROZOUBINSKI
Tariff elimination on this scale
through a free trade agreement
is almost unprecedented.
Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison meeting with British counterpart Boris Johnson in London this month (Andrew Parsons/No 10 Downing Street/Flickr)
Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison meeting with British counterpart Boris Johnson in London this month (Andrew Parsons/No 10 Downing Street/Flickr)
Published 24 Jun 2021 Trade Free Trade Australia Follow @DmitryOpines
Australian trade negotiators often enter talks with difficult demands and a comparatively weak hand. Agriculture, where they seek concessions from the other side, is politically sensitive meaning they are asking their counterparts to do what is hard. In exchange, they have little to offer because the Australian economy is already largely liberalised in all the ways governments are willing to tolerate. So their success in the recent Australia-UK Free Trade negotiations: agreement in principle, secured charging uphill without ammunition, is therefore all the more remarkable.
Upon entry into force the agreement eliminates all tariffs and quotas except, for some reason, long-grain rice. It does so almost immediately. There are phase in schedules and a handful of safeguards, to be sure, but they are so generous it is impossible to imagine their ever limiting Australia’s exports in practice.
It is hard to overstate this achievement by the Australian negotiating team. Trade ministries love to put out press releases claiming their recent deal eliminates “99% of tariffs,” but in most cases, this is numerical trickery, either because the partner in question had so few tariffs to begin with (such as Singapore or New Zealand) or because the final 1% contains much of what would actually be commercially meaningful. Not this time. This deal does what it says on the tin.
Tariff elimination on this scale through a free trade agreement is almost unprecedented. Australia did not achieve it with Japan through JAEPA, China through CHAFTA, South Korea through KAFTA or the United States through AUSFTA. It is more than Australia secured from the parties in the CPTPP or those in RCEP, and is likely to substantially exceed what Australia gets in its EU negotiations.
Remarkably, it is not clear what UK negotiators managed to extract in reciprocal concessions. Sure Australia has agreed to eliminate its own tariffs, but that is somewhat like landlocked Switzerland offering to eliminate its navy. Unlike the UK, which has some formidable tariff walls around agriculture, Australia’s tariffs are incredibly low and their elimination is unlikely to change anyone’s commercial calculus.
Australia did concede to expand the “working holiday youth mobility program” for UK nationals. The duration is to be extended from two years to three, the age of eligibility expanded to 35 and the second year requirement to spend months working in the Australian outback has been dropped. There was also some mutual qualification recognition, or at least the processes to achieve them, and we can reasonably expect Australia to ease Foreign Investment Review Board screening for British capital. All good outcomes for the United Kingdom but hardly a triumph.
Domestically, the UK government has taken somewhat inconsistent approaches to explaining its unexpected bout of generosity. To farmers and their representatives, apoplectic about this deal, it has argued that Australian produce is unlikely to flood into the UK market, citing existing trading patterns and strong demand closer to home. It has also pointed repeatedly to its refusal to remove sanitary and phytosanitary bans in areas such as beef with artificial hormones as evidence of its having successfully defended British interests.
Whatever the explanation for the UK’s generosity of spirit in this negotiation, Australian producers stand to benefit.
Conversely, in media commentary, press releases, and speaking to its more libertarian members the UK government primarily emphasised the benefits to consumers of cheaper or at least more plentiful access to Australian products, from Tim Tam biscuits to steaks.
These points are obviously contradictory. Any surge of Australian products large enough to depress prices will by definition hurt local British producers, but if no such surge eventuates then the benefits to consumers are likely to be marginal.
More neutral observers have suggested that the Boris Johnson government’s calculus in reaching agreement in principle, and doing so this quickly, may have had non-trade motives. Brexit, and more recently a harder Brexit beyond the EU Single Market and Customs Union were sold partially on the prospects of a free trade globally buccaneering Britain."
"The chips on the table were tariffs, and Australia seems poised to walk away with all of them."
I stead of just a waffle copy paste of stuff you havent read.
Which bit wasn't true.
Pick aparticular bit to point out. The highlight which part of your copy past waffle you think proves it wrong.
Of course I cut and pasted it. I also read it. The Australians are laughing.
I know you love to discuss individual words and sentences when the overall argument completely contradicts you. It's a juvenile way to argue.
Nobody except for the UK Government thinks that it was a good deal for the UK.
George Eustice:
"The first step is to recognise that the Australia trade deal is not actually a very good deal for the UK, which was not for lack of trying on my part."
"Overall, the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.
"We did not actually need to give Australia nor New Zealand full liberalisation of beef and sheep. It was not in our economic interests to do so. And neither Australia nor New Zealand had anything to offer in return for such a grand concession.
"The UK went into this negotiation holding the strongest hand, the best cards, but at some point in early summer 2021, the then trade secretary took a decision to set an arbitrary target to conclude it by G7. From that moment we were on the back foot.
"At one point the then trade secretary asked her opposite number from Australia what he would need in order to conclude an agreement by G7 and of course he then set out his terms which eventually shaped the deal. We must never repeat that mistake."
https://news.sky.com/story/george-eustice-brands-australia-free-trade-deal-a-failure-in-brutal-swipe-at-liz-truss-12747723"Ah the parting shot from gorgeous when he was let go. Yes. Tell me. You seem to be concentrating o the liberalisation of the tarriffs o uk beef lamb etc yes? From your quoted tweets and people wondering why this happened. Let's see if we can focus your copy pastes onto 1 issue. Would that be correct? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive.
This is from the Baker Institute on Public Policy at Rice University:
"This language and the Commerce Clause would prevent Texas (or any other state) and the UK from entering into any formal international agreement that would, inter alia, affect tariffs or any similar charges or anything that clearly falls under the definitions of “commerce,” “treaty,” or “agreement.”
However, there have been multiple instances where U.S. states have entered into less formal arrangements, often termed “memoranda of understanding” (MOUs), with foreign states or governments that appear to have been generally accepted if they are considered non-binding."
"One obvious question is whether a UK-Texas MOU along these lines would have any economic significance as opposed to political benefits for both parties. The answer is probably “not a great deal.”"
Get as excited as you like. There is precious little to get excited about in all of this.
Aspiration and politics.
So the mous can be signed for improvement in trade and I vestments without an fta.
Thanks for backing up what I said.
You can sign any non-binding agreement that you like to window-dress. You can invest what you like now.
I didn't say that wasn't possible, but good "win". Congrats.
"One obvious question is whether a UK-Texas MOU along these lines would have any economic significance as opposed to political benefits for both parties. The answer is probably “not a great deal.”""Yes it is a win for brexit Britain | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Today is the day folks and according to the official UK Government impact assessments, they will mean losses of: - £142 million a year to British agriculture, forestry and fishing. - £322 million a year to British semi-processed food manufacturers. We have a Government that knows how to win! Now the gains? Go on then
Sure (£m)
motor vehicles +202
Machinery +231
Services for business +212
Contruction+173
Other services +229
Public services +264
Retail and wholesale trade +341
Personal services +69
Financial services +69
Paper and printing +36
Electronic equipment +89
Energy +24
The uk should increase exports by 5.4bn and Australia and Australia should get an additional 4.3bn
( based on 2019 numbers)
where this from ?
I've only mentioned it about 20 times across numerous threads over the last year...
The impact assessment
Do you have the UK governments official figures to back up this claim ,
This is the official figures.
The government’s own calculations estimate that the deal will have a negligible long-term contribution to the British economy, forecasting it will increase UK GDP by only 0.08%, or £2.3bn a year, by 2035.
Yes...that's an increase on growth no? As we have stated before it's a static model.
0.08 % in 12 years
As a base.
Less than 0.01 % a year
As a base.
Small gains, poor deal.
Minimum gains. Good deal
Less than 0.01 % a year, anyway, it gives you something to ‘celebrate ‘ (at last)
And yet. People on here said we were taken for a ride by Australia and they got the better deal( demonstrably u true from The impact assessment)
Some even said they didn't believe we'd sign either into parliament.
Some believed it would mean hormone beef etc ( again demonstrably untrue)
So many bitter minds in here still
This isn't true is it?
"Australia to enjoy exports boost six times greater than UK from trade deal, experts say"
"UK sales will grow by just 0.35 per cent from the agreement, the UK Trade Policy Observatory (UKTPO) forecasts – compared with a 2.2 per cent jump for Australia’s businesses."
"“These are very small numbers,” said Professor Michael Gasiorek, director of the observatory at the University of Sussex, adding: “We see a bigger positive effect for Australia than for the UK.”
The conclusions come after the government admitted the average household would be just £1.20 a year better off from the deal, which would boost GDP by only 0.02 per cent over 15 years."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/australia-uk-trade-deal-exports-truss-b1869879.html
Since revised down.
The Lowy Institute (a pretty right wing Australian think tank) views it like this:
Australia sweeps
the table in the
UK trade deal"
Remarkably, it is not clear what UK negotiators managed to extract in reciprocal concessions. Sure Australia has agreed to eliminate its own tariffs, but that is somewhat like landlocked Switzerland offering to eliminate its navy. Unlike the UK, which has some formidable tariff walls around agriculture, Australia’s tariffs are incredibly low and their elimination is unlikely to change anyone’s commercial calculus."
"nterpreter
Australia sweeps
the table in the
UK trade deal
DMITRY GROZOUBINSKI
Tariff elimination on this scale
through a free trade agreement
is almost unprecedented.
Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison meeting with British counterpart Boris Johnson in London this month (Andrew Parsons/No 10 Downing Street/Flickr)
Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison meeting with British counterpart Boris Johnson in London this month (Andrew Parsons/No 10 Downing Street/Flickr)
Published 24 Jun 2021 Trade Free Trade Australia Follow @DmitryOpines
Australian trade negotiators often enter talks with difficult demands and a comparatively weak hand. Agriculture, where they seek concessions from the other side, is politically sensitive meaning they are asking their counterparts to do what is hard. In exchange, they have little to offer because the Australian economy is already largely liberalised in all the ways governments are willing to tolerate. So their success in the recent Australia-UK Free Trade negotiations: agreement in principle, secured charging uphill without ammunition, is therefore all the more remarkable.
Upon entry into force the agreement eliminates all tariffs and quotas except, for some reason, long-grain rice. It does so almost immediately. There are phase in schedules and a handful of safeguards, to be sure, but they are so generous it is impossible to imagine their ever limiting Australia’s exports in practice.
It is hard to overstate this achievement by the Australian negotiating team. Trade ministries love to put out press releases claiming their recent deal eliminates “99% of tariffs,” but in most cases, this is numerical trickery, either because the partner in question had so few tariffs to begin with (such as Singapore or New Zealand) or because the final 1% contains much of what would actually be commercially meaningful. Not this time. This deal does what it says on the tin.
Tariff elimination on this scale through a free trade agreement is almost unprecedented. Australia did not achieve it with Japan through JAEPA, China through CHAFTA, South Korea through KAFTA or the United States through AUSFTA. It is more than Australia secured from the parties in the CPTPP or those in RCEP, and is likely to substantially exceed what Australia gets in its EU negotiations.
Remarkably, it is not clear what UK negotiators managed to extract in reciprocal concessions. Sure Australia has agreed to eliminate its own tariffs, but that is somewhat like landlocked Switzerland offering to eliminate its navy. Unlike the UK, which has some formidable tariff walls around agriculture, Australia’s tariffs are incredibly low and their elimination is unlikely to change anyone’s commercial calculus.
Australia did concede to expand the “working holiday youth mobility program” for UK nationals. The duration is to be extended from two years to three, the age of eligibility expanded to 35 and the second year requirement to spend months working in the Australian outback has been dropped. There was also some mutual qualification recognition, or at least the processes to achieve them, and we can reasonably expect Australia to ease Foreign Investment Review Board screening for British capital. All good outcomes for the United Kingdom but hardly a triumph.
Domestically, the UK government has taken somewhat inconsistent approaches to explaining its unexpected bout of generosity. To farmers and their representatives, apoplectic about this deal, it has argued that Australian produce is unlikely to flood into the UK market, citing existing trading patterns and strong demand closer to home. It has also pointed repeatedly to its refusal to remove sanitary and phytosanitary bans in areas such as beef with artificial hormones as evidence of its having successfully defended British interests.
Whatever the explanation for the UK’s generosity of spirit in this negotiation, Australian producers stand to benefit.
Conversely, in media commentary, press releases, and speaking to its more libertarian members the UK government primarily emphasised the benefits to consumers of cheaper or at least more plentiful access to Australian products, from Tim Tam biscuits to steaks.
These points are obviously contradictory. Any surge of Australian products large enough to depress prices will by definition hurt local British producers, but if no such surge eventuates then the benefits to consumers are likely to be marginal.
More neutral observers have suggested that the Boris Johnson government’s calculus in reaching agreement in principle, and doing so this quickly, may have had non-trade motives. Brexit, and more recently a harder Brexit beyond the EU Single Market and Customs Union were sold partially on the prospects of a free trade globally buccaneering Britain."
"The chips on the table were tariffs, and Australia seems poised to walk away with all of them."
I stead of just a waffle copy paste of stuff you havent read.
Which bit wasn't true.
Pick aparticular bit to point out. The highlight which part of your copy past waffle you think proves it wrong.
Of course I cut and pasted it. I also read it. The Australians are laughing.
I know you love to discuss individual words and sentences when the overall argument completely contradicts you. It's a juvenile way to argue.
Nobody except for the UK Government thinks that it was a good deal for the UK.
George Eustice:
"The first step is to recognise that the Australia trade deal is not actually a very good deal for the UK, which was not for lack of trying on my part."
"Overall, the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.
"We did not actually need to give Australia nor New Zealand full liberalisation of beef and sheep. It was not in our economic interests to do so. And neither Australia nor New Zealand had anything to offer in return for such a grand concession.
"The UK went into this negotiation holding the strongest hand, the best cards, but at some point in early summer 2021, the then trade secretary took a decision to set an arbitrary target to conclude it by G7. From that moment we were on the back foot.
"At one point the then trade secretary asked her opposite number from Australia what he would need in order to conclude an agreement by G7 and of course he then set out his terms which eventually shaped the deal. We must never repeat that mistake."
https://news.sky.com/story/george-eustice-brands-australia-free-trade-deal-a-failure-in-brutal-swipe-at-liz-truss-12747723
Ah the parting shot from gorgeous when he was let go. Yes.
Tell me.
You seem to be concentrating o the liberalisation of the tarriffs o uk beef lamb etc yes?
From your quoted tweets and people wondering why this happened.
Let's see if we can focus your copy pastes onto 1 issue.
Would that be correct?"I'm not "concentrating" on anything. This conversation doesn't require concentration. Nobody in the UK thinks that this is a good deal except the UK Government and their press. The Australians think that it's a fantastic deal. Unbelievable. Amazing. Truly exceptional. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive.
This is from the Baker Institute on Public Policy at Rice University:
"This language and the Commerce Clause would prevent Texas (or any other state) and the UK from entering into any formal international agreement that would, inter alia, affect tariffs or any similar charges or anything that clearly falls under the definitions of “commerce,” “treaty,” or “agreement.”
However, there have been multiple instances where U.S. states have entered into less formal arrangements, often termed “memoranda of understanding” (MOUs), with foreign states or governments that appear to have been generally accepted if they are considered non-binding."
"One obvious question is whether a UK-Texas MOU along these lines would have any economic significance as opposed to political benefits for both parties. The answer is probably “not a great deal.”"
Get as excited as you like. There is precious little to get excited about in all of this.
Aspiration and politics.
So the mous can be signed for improvement in trade and I vestments without an fta.
Thanks for backing up what I said.
You can sign any non-binding agreement that you like to window-dress. You can invest what you like now.
I didn't say that wasn't possible, but good "win". Congrats.
"One obvious question is whether a UK-Texas MOU along these lines would have any economic significance as opposed to political benefits for both parties. The answer is probably “not a great deal.”"
Yes it is a win for brexit Britain "Excellent and well argued come back. Lots of data. What does Professor Gudgin and Briefings for Britain have to say about it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive.
This is from the Baker Institute on Public Policy at Rice University:
"This language and the Commerce Clause would prevent Texas (or any other state) and the UK from entering into any formal international agreement that would, inter alia, affect tariffs or any similar charges or anything that clearly falls under the definitions of “commerce,” “treaty,” or “agreement.”
However, there have been multiple instances where U.S. states have entered into less formal arrangements, often termed “memoranda of understanding” (MOUs), with foreign states or governments that appear to have been generally accepted if they are considered non-binding."
"One obvious question is whether a UK-Texas MOU along these lines would have any economic significance as opposed to political benefits for both parties. The answer is probably “not a great deal.”"
Get as excited as you like. There is precious little to get excited about in all of this.
Aspiration and politics.
So the mous can be signed for improvement in trade and I vestments without an fta.
Thanks for backing up what I said.
You can sign any non-binding agreement that you like to window-dress. You can invest what you like now.
I didn't say that wasn't possible, but good "win". Congrats.
"One obvious question is whether a UK-Texas MOU along these lines would have any economic significance as opposed to political benefits for both parties. The answer is probably “not a great deal.”"
Yes it is a win for brexit Britain "Yes agreed - although there appears to be several here including within Goverment who think it is more of a win for Australia- but notwithstanding, for all its merits this trade deal does not come close to offsetting our trade loss with Europe. Apologies for peeing on your chips but that’s the reality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you think the civil servants who run the site, the colorado government, the uk government. Are all lying. I hope you like your tinfoil hat. No offence, but celebrating a trade deal with Colorado when the USA deal is dead is desperate, do you get all your info from gully ?
It's not just colorado.
Have a deeper dive.
This is from the Baker Institute on Public Policy at Rice University:
"This language and the Commerce Clause would prevent Texas (or any other state) and the UK from entering into any formal international agreement that would, inter alia, affect tariffs or any similar charges or anything that clearly falls under the definitions of “commerce,” “treaty,” or “agreement.”
However, there have been multiple instances where U.S. states have entered into less formal arrangements, often termed “memoranda of understanding” (MOUs), with foreign states or governments that appear to have been generally accepted if they are considered non-binding."
"One obvious question is whether a UK-Texas MOU along these lines would have any economic significance as opposed to political benefits for both parties. The answer is probably “not a great deal.”"
Get as excited as you like. There is precious little to get excited about in all of this.
Aspiration and politics.
So the mous can be signed for improvement in trade and I vestments without an fta.
Thanks for backing up what I said.
You can sign any non-binding agreement that you like to window-dress. You can invest what you like now.
I didn't say that wasn't possible, but good "win". Congrats.
"One obvious question is whether a UK-Texas MOU along these lines would have any economic significance as opposed to political benefits for both parties. The answer is probably “not a great deal.”"
Yes it is a win for brexit Britain
Yes agreed - although there appears to be several here including within Goverment who think it is more of a win for Australia- but notwithstanding, for all its merits this trade deal does not come close to offsetting our trade loss with Europe. Apologies for peeing on your chips but that’s the reality."But it's not. The numbers show its not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"you have misunderstood the simple point i am making…. which is that the estimated increase in GDP for UK plc as a result of the Australia trade deal is considerably less than our estimated loss of GDP from leaving the EU. which is the Governments figures not mine. No other point just that. I agree though we should celebrate the wins but context is everything… " But it doesn't have to replace the e.u deal. We have an fta. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"you have misunderstood the simple point i am making…. which is that the estimated increase in GDP for UK plc as a result of the Australia trade deal is considerably less than our estimated loss of GDP from leaving the EU. which is the Governments figures not mine. No other point just that. I agree though we should celebrate the wins but context is everything… But it doesn't have to replace the e.u deal. We have an fta. " Why do you try so, so hard to construct mirage victories in the name of the most incompetent Government in living memory? It’s bizarre. The choices that this U.K. government made in the way that the UK left the EU has resulted in significant losses to the economy. That is a fail. In their zealous pursuit of “signing a trade deal” they signed what George Eustice has finally called a “poorly negotiated deal”. That is a fail. Nothing is making up for the losses, the angst, the inconveniences and sheer stupidity of the lies and the deceit propagated in order to secure the MASSIVE Brexit turd. It’s just bizarre that anyone would try to create smoke and mirrors wins out of thin air. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"you have misunderstood the simple point i am making…. which is that the estimated increase in GDP for UK plc as a result of the Australia trade deal is considerably less than our estimated loss of GDP from leaving the EU. which is the Governments figures not mine. No other point just that. I agree though we should celebrate the wins but context is everything… But it doesn't have to replace the e.u deal. We have an fta. " You know very well that the new EU trade agreement has already caused a 1.6% fall in GDP and is projected to lose 4% in total over 15 years The NZ trade deal is projected to have 0.02-0.03% increase in UK GDP and Australia 0.08% 0.11% total benefit. If you can provide a "dynamic" figure that demonstrates a better result then please do, bit then also provide the equivalent "dynamic" figure to demonstrate the loss in GDP from reduced EU trade. The EU also has a trade deal with NZ, of course, so that's another pyric victory. Those are the only ones you get, so hold on to it tightly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"you have misunderstood the simple point i am making…. which is that the estimated increase in GDP for UK plc as a result of the Australia trade deal is considerably less than our estimated loss of GDP from leaving the EU. which is the Governments figures not mine. No other point just that. I agree though we should celebrate the wins but context is everything… But it doesn't have to replace the e.u deal. We have an fta. Why do you try so, so hard to construct mirage victories in the name of the most incompetent Government in living memory? It’s bizarre. The choices that this U.K. government made in the way that the UK left the EU has resulted in significant losses to the economy. That is a fail. In their zealous pursuit of “signing a trade deal” they signed what George Eustice has finally called a “poorly negotiated deal”. That is a fail. Nothing is making up for the losses, the angst, the inconveniences and sheer stupidity of the lies and the deceit propagated in order to secure the MASSIVE Brexit turd. It’s just bizarre that anyone would try to create smoke and mirrors wins out of thin air." Gotta keep smoking that Briefings for Britain funny fags! For another example you should see the absolute bollocks spouted by Gully Foyle on Twitter. That chap is not bound by forum rules so treats people with utter contempt if they dare disagree. Complete twat but lacking credentials and as he only has 7.6k followers, doesn’t even meet “Morley’s Measure” of significant followers (requires over 10k). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"you have misunderstood the simple point i am making…. which is that the estimated increase in GDP for UK plc as a result of the Australia trade deal is considerably less than our estimated loss of GDP from leaving the EU. which is the Governments figures not mine. No other point just that. I agree though we should celebrate the wins but context is everything… But it doesn't have to replace the e.u deal. We have an fta. Why do you try so, so hard to construct mirage victories in the name of the most incompetent Government in living memory? It’s bizarre. The choices that this U.K. government made in the way that the UK left the EU has resulted in significant losses to the economy. That is a fail. In their zealous pursuit of “signing a trade deal” they signed what George Eustice has finally called a “poorly negotiated deal”. That is a fail. Nothing is making up for the losses, the angst, the inconveniences and sheer stupidity of the lies and the deceit propagated in order to secure the MASSIVE Brexit turd. It’s just bizarre that anyone would try to create smoke and mirrors wins out of thin air. Gotta keep smoking that Briefings for Britain funny fags! For another example you should see the absolute bollocks spouted by Gully Foyle on Twitter. That chap is not bound by forum rules so treats people with utter contempt if they dare disagree. Complete twat but lacking credentials and as he only has 7.6k followers, doesn’t even meet “Morley’s Measure” of significant followers (requires over 10k)." Gully is an imbecile, absolutely no credibility, his tweets are hilarious | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"you have misunderstood the simple point i am making…. which is that the estimated increase in GDP for UK plc as a result of the Australia trade deal is considerably less than our estimated loss of GDP from leaving the EU. which is the Governments figures not mine. No other point just that. I agree though we should celebrate the wins but context is everything… But it doesn't have to replace the e.u deal. We have an fta. You know very well that the new EU trade agreement has already caused a 1.6% fall in GDP and is projected to lose 4% in total over 15 years The NZ trade deal is projected to have 0.02-0.03% increase in UK GDP and Australia 0.08% 0.11% total benefit. If you can provide a "dynamic" figure that demonstrates a better result then please do, bit then also provide the equivalent "dynamic" figure to demonstrate the loss in GDP from reduced EU trade. The EU also has a trade deal with NZ, of course, so that's another pyric victory. Those are the only ones you get, so hold on to it tightly." No we went over this it hasn't. Not unless you can show why frNce and Germany failed to grow at the same trend. As stated Germany has grown LESS since uk voted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"you have misunderstood the simple point i am making…. which is that the estimated increase in GDP for UK plc as a result of the Australia trade deal is considerably less than our estimated loss of GDP from leaving the EU. which is the Governments figures not mine. No other point just that. I agree though we should celebrate the wins but context is everything… But it doesn't have to replace the e.u deal. We have an fta. Why do you try so, so hard to construct mirage victories in the name of the most incompetent Government in living memory? It’s bizarre. The choices that this U.K. government made in the way that the UK left the EU has resulted in significant losses to the economy. That is a fail. In their zealous pursuit of “signing a trade deal” they signed what George Eustice has finally called a “poorly negotiated deal”. That is a fail. Nothing is making up for the losses, the angst, the inconveniences and sheer stupidity of the lies and the deceit propagated in order to secure the MASSIVE Brexit turd. It’s just bizarre that anyone would try to create smoke and mirrors wins out of thin air. Gotta keep smoking that Briefings for Britain funny fags! For another example you should see the absolute bollocks spouted by Gully Foyle on Twitter. That chap is not bound by forum rules so treats people with utter contempt if they dare disagree. Complete twat but lacking credentials and as he only has 7.6k followers, doesn’t even meet “Morley’s Measure” of significant followers (requires over 10k)." What's he got wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Your boss has already conceded the whole kingdom,” https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-sold-out-uk-farmers-australia-trade-deal-uk/" So as then Let's see what we can agree on by me asking some dimple questions. 1) I the e.u. could the uk stop imports from other e.u countries? 2) did all other countries in e.u need to meet uk standards of production? 3) do all imports from e.u and Australia need to meet uk production levels. 4)how many farms in Australia meet those requirements? Some basic questions here you can answer which will lead to a point t | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"you have misunderstood the simple point i am making…. which is that the estimated increase in GDP for UK plc as a result of the Australia trade deal is considerably less than our estimated loss of GDP from leaving the EU. which is the Governments figures not mine. No other point just that. I agree though we should celebrate the wins but context is everything… But it doesn't have to replace the e.u deal. We have an fta. Why do you try so, so hard to construct mirage victories in the name of the most incompetent Government in living memory? It’s bizarre. The choices that this U.K. government made in the way that the UK left the EU has resulted in significant losses to the economy. That is a fail. In their zealous pursuit of “signing a trade deal” they signed what George Eustice has finally called a “poorly negotiated deal”. That is a fail. Nothing is making up for the losses, the angst, the inconveniences and sheer stupidity of the lies and the deceit propagated in order to secure the MASSIVE Brexit turd. It’s just bizarre that anyone would try to create smoke and mirrors wins out of thin air. Gotta keep smoking that Briefings for Britain funny fags! For another example you should see the absolute bollocks spouted by Gully Foyle on Twitter. That chap is not bound by forum rules so treats people with utter contempt if they dare disagree. Complete twat but lacking credentials and as he only has 7.6k followers, doesn’t even meet “Morley’s Measure” of significant followers (requires over 10k). Gully is an imbecile, absolutely no credibility, his tweets are hilarious " Any particular ones you feel he got wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Your boss has already conceded the whole kingdom,” https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-sold-out-uk-farmers-australia-trade-deal-uk/ So as then Let's see what we can agree on by me asking some dimple questions. 1) I the e.u. could the uk stop imports from other e.u countries? 2) did all other countries in e.u need to meet uk standards of production? 3) do all imports from e.u and Australia need to meet uk production levels. 4)how many farms in Australia meet those requirements? Some basic questions here you can answer which will lead to a point t " Amazing . 4 simple questions no one wanted to answer. Because they know where it leads them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"or maybe they are just more interested in the bigger picture?" Feel free to answer the questions now you jave replied. It builds to a fantastic point Would you like me to answer them for you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Your boss has already conceded the whole kingdom,” https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-sold-out-uk-farmers-australia-trade-deal-uk/ So as then Let's see what we can agree on by me asking some dimple questions. 1) I the e.u. could the uk stop imports from other e.u countries? 2) did all other countries in e.u need to meet uk standards of production? 3) do all imports from e.u and Australia need to meet uk production levels. 4)how many farms in Australia meet those requirements? Some basic questions here you can answer which will lead to a point t Amazing . 4 simple questions no one wanted to answer. Because they know where it leads them." I will try with my thoughts but not sure I understand number one question correctly 1) I don't think they could be banned but surely it's up to the consumer. Companies from Europe will not send things here if they don't sell. It's very possible I misunderstand the question though. 2) No, as I understand it they had to meet EU standards only. 3) Imports from Australia will have to meet UK standards (is that the same as production levels?). Not sure about the EU stuff though, I would not be surprised if it was part of the trade agreement that the UK continues to accept EU produce standards. Just a guess. 4) no idea but would guess not many though that does not stop them improving in the future if they feel its worth it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Your boss has already conceded the whole kingdom,” https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-sold-out-uk-farmers-australia-trade-deal-uk/ So as then Let's see what we can agree on by me asking some dimple questions. 1) I the e.u. could the uk stop imports from other e.u countries? 2) did all other countries in e.u need to meet uk standards of production? 3) do all imports from e.u and Australia need to meet uk production levels. 4)how many farms in Australia meet those requirements? Some basic questions here you can answer which will lead to a point t Amazing . 4 simple questions no one wanted to answer. Because they know where it leads them. I will try with my thoughts but not sure I understand number one question correctly 1) I don't think they could be banned but surely it's up to the consumer. Companies from Europe will not send things here if they don't sell. It's very possible I misunderstand the question though. 2) No, as I understand it they had to meet EU standards only. 3) Imports from Australia will have to meet UK standards (is that the same as production levels?). Not sure about the EU stuff though, I would not be surprised if it was part of the trade agreement that the UK continues to accept EU produce standards. Just a guess. 4) no idea but would guess not many though that does not stop them improving in the future if they feel its worth it " 1)correct. No e.u country could ban exports that met e.u requirementsfrom other e.u members. The ecj rules on this.( we took France to court over this and won) 2) correct. They only have to meet e.u standards. Not the uk 3) all imports in the TCA and uk oz fta MUST meet uk production standards. 4) it's about 800. This was the case while we were in the e.u. its not changed. So all current traders allowed to export to the uk. We're allowed to export while we were in the e.u. and they did export here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers " did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? " Gold plating is when countries took the e.u minimum and built further requirements on top of them and then tried stopping exports from countries or further restricting their own domestic supply. Happened quite a lot in new industries and services. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? Gold plating is when countries took the e.u minimum and built further requirements on top of them and then tried stopping exports from countries or further restricting their own domestic supply. Happened quite a lot in new industries and services." I understand gold plating. U do t know if we have enhanced out import requirements now we are out of the EU. I suspect not with the EU fta or any of the roll over deals. But the aus and NZ we started from scratch. So are our minimums higher than the EU's ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? Gold plating is when countries took the e.u minimum and built further requirements on top of them and then tried stopping exports from countries or further restricting their own domestic supply. Happened quite a lot in new industries and services.I understand gold plating. U do t know if we have enhanced out import requirements now we are out of the EU. I suspect not with the EU fta or any of the roll over deals. But the aus and NZ we started from scratch. So are our minimums higher than the EU's ?" All imports must now meet our domestic production stnandards.( imports requirements) This is in the texts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? Gold plating is when countries took the e.u minimum and built further requirements on top of them and then tried stopping exports from countries or further restricting their own domestic supply. Happened quite a lot in new industries and services.I understand gold plating. U do t know if we have enhanced out import requirements now we are out of the EU. I suspect not with the EU fta or any of the roll over deals. But the aus and NZ we started from scratch. So are our minimums higher than the EU's ? All imports must now meet our domestic production stnandards.( imports requirements) This is in the texts." so aussie meat has a higher standard to meet than EU meat? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? Gold plating is when countries took the e.u minimum and built further requirements on top of them and then tried stopping exports from countries or further restricting their own domestic supply. Happened quite a lot in new industries and services.I understand gold plating. U do t know if we have enhanced out import requirements now we are out of the EU. I suspect not with the EU fta or any of the roll over deals. But the aus and NZ we started from scratch. So are our minimums higher than the EU's ? All imports must now meet our domestic production stnandards.( imports requirements) This is in the texts.so aussie meat has a higher standard to meet than EU meat? " They formerly did. Not any more. They must all meet uk standards. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? Gold plating is when countries took the e.u minimum and built further requirements on top of them and then tried stopping exports from countries or further restricting their own domestic supply. Happened quite a lot in new industries and services.I understand gold plating. U do t know if we have enhanced out import requirements now we are out of the EU. I suspect not with the EU fta or any of the roll over deals. But the aus and NZ we started from scratch. So are our minimums higher than the EU's ? All imports must now meet our domestic production stnandards.( imports requirements) This is in the texts.so aussie meat has a higher standard to meet than EU meat? They formerly did. Not any more. They must all meet uk standards." I meant when importing I to the UK. Aussie farmers have to meet higher standards than EU farmers if they wish to import into Uk. That's how I've read your responses. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers " Thank you for the info. These things don't seem to get mentioned in main stream media. I was surprised to learn that the EU now have to meet UK standards on produce as we have been accepting EU standards it for many years. I thought that would have been an easy compromise. Maybe it's to keep the same rules for all importing countries is my guess | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? Gold plating is when countries took the e.u minimum and built further requirements on top of them and then tried stopping exports from countries or further restricting their own domestic supply. Happened quite a lot in new industries and services.I understand gold plating. U do t know if we have enhanced out import requirements now we are out of the EU. I suspect not with the EU fta or any of the roll over deals. But the aus and NZ we started from scratch. So are our minimums higher than the EU's ? All imports must now meet our domestic production stnandards.( imports requirements) This is in the texts.so aussie meat has a higher standard to meet than EU meat? They formerly did. Not any more. They must all meet uk standards.I meant when importing I to the UK. Aussie farmers have to meet higher standards than EU farmers if they wish to import into Uk. That's how I've read your responses. " Oh, I read that as, imports from the EU and Australia have to meet UK standards. Regardless of what their current standards are. Depending on what their standards are now they may have to improve those standards or they may already meet UK standards, in which case no change needed. Basically the entry requirements are the same. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers Thank you for the info. These things don't seem to get mentioned in main stream media. I was surprised to learn that the EU now have to meet UK standards on produce as we have been accepting EU standards it for many years. I thought that would have been an easy compromise. Maybe it's to keep the same rules for all importing countries is my guess" As the UK is a net importer, if the EU farmers don't meet the UK standards (which in most cases were actually EU standards) then surely, the UK will face shortages as I am not aware of the EU relying on exports to the UK to survive. Or perhaps the "they need us more than we need them" mantra that Farage and Co. repeatedly touted was right after all! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? Gold plating is when countries took the e.u minimum and built further requirements on top of them and then tried stopping exports from countries or further restricting their own domestic supply. Happened quite a lot in new industries and services.I understand gold plating. U do t know if we have enhanced out import requirements now we are out of the EU. I suspect not with the EU fta or any of the roll over deals. But the aus and NZ we started from scratch. So are our minimums higher than the EU's ? All imports must now meet our domestic production stnandards.( imports requirements) This is in the texts.so aussie meat has a higher standard to meet than EU meat? They formerly did. Not any more. They must all meet uk standards.I meant when importing I to the UK. Aussie farmers have to meet higher standards than EU farmers if they wish to import into Uk. That's how I've read your responses. " No they must ALL meet our standards now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers Thank you for the info. These things don't seem to get mentioned in main stream media. I was surprised to learn that the EU now have to meet UK standards on produce as we have been accepting EU standards it for many years. I thought that would have been an easy compromise. Maybe it's to keep the same rules for all importing countries is my guess" ECJ made rulings and it was part of the single market rules. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? Gold plating is when countries took the e.u minimum and built further requirements on top of them and then tried stopping exports from countries or further restricting their own domestic supply. Happened quite a lot in new industries and services.I understand gold plating. U do t know if we have enhanced out import requirements now we are out of the EU. I suspect not with the EU fta or any of the roll over deals. But the aus and NZ we started from scratch. So are our minimums higher than the EU's ? All imports must now meet our domestic production stnandards.( imports requirements) This is in the texts.so aussie meat has a higher standard to meet than EU meat? They formerly did. Not any more. They must all meet uk standards.I meant when importing I to the UK. Aussie farmers have to meet higher standards than EU farmers if they wish to import into Uk. That's how I've read your responses. Oh, I read that as, imports from the EU and Australia have to meet UK standards. Regardless of what their current standards are. Depending on what their standards are now they may have to improve those standards or they may already meet UK standards, in which case no change needed. Basically the entry requirements are the same." Yes they do. They all must meet uk standards. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? Gold plating is when countries took the e.u minimum and built further requirements on top of them and then tried stopping exports from countries or further restricting their own domestic supply. Happened quite a lot in new industries and services.I understand gold plating. U do t know if we have enhanced out import requirements now we are out of the EU. I suspect not with the EU fta or any of the roll over deals. But the aus and NZ we started from scratch. So are our minimums higher than the EU's ? All imports must now meet our domestic production stnandards.( imports requirements) This is in the texts.so aussie meat has a higher standard to meet than EU meat? They formerly did. Not any more. They must all meet uk standards.I meant when importing I to the UK. Aussie farmers have to meet higher standards than EU farmers if they wish to import into Uk. That's how I've read your responses. Oh, I read that as, imports from the EU and Australia have to meet UK standards. Regardless of what their current standards are. Depending on what their standards are now they may have to improve those standards or they may already meet UK standards, in which case no change needed. Basically the entry requirements are the same. Yes they do. They all must meet uk standards. " ..and these standards... Are they the same standards that the UK adopted whilst still part of the EU? Or perhaps they were re-written whilst nobody was paying attention .. Or perhaps our government decided that the standards were too high a bar and decided to scrap them along with all the other EU laws. So, whilst I agree with your point of using UK standards... What standards are we actually talking about and do they differ in any way from those that the UK has been using whilst part of the EU? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? Gold plating is when countries took the e.u minimum and built further requirements on top of them and then tried stopping exports from countries or further restricting their own domestic supply. Happened quite a lot in new industries and services.I understand gold plating. U do t know if we have enhanced out import requirements now we are out of the EU. I suspect not with the EU fta or any of the roll over deals. But the aus and NZ we started from scratch. So are our minimums higher than the EU's ? All imports must now meet our domestic production stnandards.( imports requirements) This is in the texts.so aussie meat has a higher standard to meet than EU meat? They formerly did. Not any more. They must all meet uk standards.I meant when importing I to the UK. Aussie farmers have to meet higher standards than EU farmers if they wish to import into Uk. That's how I've read your responses. Oh, I read that as, imports from the EU and Australia have to meet UK standards. Regardless of what their current standards are. Depending on what their standards are now they may have to improve those standards or they may already meet UK standards, in which case no change needed. Basically the entry requirements are the same. Yes they do. They all must meet uk standards. ..and these standards... Are they the same standards that the UK adopted whilst still part of the EU? Or perhaps they were re-written whilst nobody was paying attention .. Or perhaps our government decided that the standards were too high a bar and decided to scrap them along with all the other EU laws. So, whilst I agree with your point of using UK standards... What standards are we actually talking about and do they differ in any way from those that the UK has been using whilst part of the EU?" They are the standards the uk set while I the e.u for its own domestic producers. Not the e.u standards. They are higher standards than required by the e.u | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? Gold plating is when countries took the e.u minimum and built further requirements on top of them and then tried stopping exports from countries or further restricting their own domestic supply. Happened quite a lot in new industries and services.I understand gold plating. U do t know if we have enhanced out import requirements now we are out of the EU. I suspect not with the EU fta or any of the roll over deals. But the aus and NZ we started from scratch. So are our minimums higher than the EU's ? All imports must now meet our domestic production stnandards.( imports requirements) This is in the texts.so aussie meat has a higher standard to meet than EU meat? They formerly did. Not any more. They must all meet uk standards.I meant when importing I to the UK. Aussie farmers have to meet higher standards than EU farmers if they wish to import into Uk. That's how I've read your responses. Oh, I read that as, imports from the EU and Australia have to meet UK standards. Regardless of what their current standards are. Depending on what their standards are now they may have to improve those standards or they may already meet UK standards, in which case no change needed. Basically the entry requirements are the same. Yes they do. They all must meet uk standards. ..and these standards... Are they the same standards that the UK adopted whilst still part of the EU? Or perhaps they were re-written whilst nobody was paying attention .. Or perhaps our government decided that the standards were too high a bar and decided to scrap them along with all the other EU laws. So, whilst I agree with your point of using UK standards... What standards are we actually talking about and do they differ in any way from those that the UK has been using whilst part of the EU? They are the standards the uk set while I the e.u for its own domestic producers. Not the e.u standards. They are higher standards than required by the e.u " I think the question being asked is : have the standards EU farmers have to meet to import into the UK increased since brexit ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? Gold plating is when countries took the e.u minimum and built further requirements on top of them and then tried stopping exports from countries or further restricting their own domestic supply. Happened quite a lot in new industries and services.I understand gold plating. U do t know if we have enhanced out import requirements now we are out of the EU. I suspect not with the EU fta or any of the roll over deals. But the aus and NZ we started from scratch. So are our minimums higher than the EU's ? All imports must now meet our domestic production stnandards.( imports requirements) This is in the texts.so aussie meat has a higher standard to meet than EU meat? They formerly did. Not any more. They must all meet uk standards.I meant when importing I to the UK. Aussie farmers have to meet higher standards than EU farmers if they wish to import into Uk. That's how I've read your responses. Oh, I read that as, imports from the EU and Australia have to meet UK standards. Regardless of what their current standards are. Depending on what their standards are now they may have to improve those standards or they may already meet UK standards, in which case no change needed. Basically the entry requirements are the same. Yes they do. They all must meet uk standards. ..and these standards... Are they the same standards that the UK adopted whilst still part of the EU? Or perhaps they were re-written whilst nobody was paying attention .. Or perhaps our government decided that the standards were too high a bar and decided to scrap them along with all the other EU laws. So, whilst I agree with your point of using UK standards... What standards are we actually talking about and do they differ in any way from those that the UK has been using whilst part of the EU? They are the standards the uk set while I the e.u for its own domestic producers. Not the e.u standards. They are higher standards than required by the e.u I think the question being asked is : have the standards EU farmers have to meet to import into the UK increased since brexit ? " Yes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? Gold plating is when countries took the e.u minimum and built further requirements on top of them and then tried stopping exports from countries or further restricting their own domestic supply. Happened quite a lot in new industries and services.I understand gold plating. U do t know if we have enhanced out import requirements now we are out of the EU. I suspect not with the EU fta or any of the roll over deals. But the aus and NZ we started from scratch. So are our minimums higher than the EU's ? All imports must now meet our domestic production stnandards.( imports requirements) This is in the texts.so aussie meat has a higher standard to meet than EU meat? They formerly did. Not any more. They must all meet uk standards.I meant when importing I to the UK. Aussie farmers have to meet higher standards than EU farmers if they wish to import into Uk. That's how I've read your responses. Oh, I read that as, imports from the EU and Australia have to meet UK standards. Regardless of what their current standards are. Depending on what their standards are now they may have to improve those standards or they may already meet UK standards, in which case no change needed. Basically the entry requirements are the same. Yes they do. They all must meet uk standards. ..and these standards... Are they the same standards that the UK adopted whilst still part of the EU? Or perhaps they were re-written whilst nobody was paying attention .. Or perhaps our government decided that the standards were too high a bar and decided to scrap them along with all the other EU laws. So, whilst I agree with your point of using UK standards... What standards are we actually talking about and do they differ in any way from those that the UK has been using whilst part of the EU? They are the standards the uk set while I the e.u for its own domestic producers. Not the e.u standards. They are higher standards than required by the e.u I think the question being asked is : have the standards EU farmers have to meet to import into the UK increased since brexit ? Yes" . So the EU signed up to an FTA that has higher minimums than the SM? Result.
Which bits have raised (I'd have thought there would have been more airtime as ive not come across it and it's never mentioned as a brexit benefit) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? Gold plating is when countries took the e.u minimum and built further requirements on top of them and then tried stopping exports from countries or further restricting their own domestic supply. Happened quite a lot in new industries and services.I understand gold plating. U do t know if we have enhanced out import requirements now we are out of the EU. I suspect not with the EU fta or any of the roll over deals. But the aus and NZ we started from scratch. So are our minimums higher than the EU's ? All imports must now meet our domestic production stnandards.( imports requirements) This is in the texts.so aussie meat has a higher standard to meet than EU meat? They formerly did. Not any more. They must all meet uk standards.I meant when importing I to the UK. Aussie farmers have to meet higher standards than EU farmers if they wish to import into Uk. That's how I've read your responses. Oh, I read that as, imports from the EU and Australia have to meet UK standards. Regardless of what their current standards are. Depending on what their standards are now they may have to improve those standards or they may already meet UK standards, in which case no change needed. Basically the entry requirements are the same. Yes they do. They all must meet uk standards. ..and these standards... Are they the same standards that the UK adopted whilst still part of the EU? Or perhaps they were re-written whilst nobody was paying attention .. Or perhaps our government decided that the standards were too high a bar and decided to scrap them along with all the other EU laws. So, whilst I agree with your point of using UK standards... What standards are we actually talking about and do they differ in any way from those that the UK has been using whilst part of the EU? They are the standards the uk set while I the e.u for its own domestic producers. Not the e.u standards. They are higher standards than required by the e.u I think the question being asked is : have the standards EU farmers have to meet to import into the UK increased since brexit ? Yes . So the EU signed up to an FTA that has higher minimums than the SM? Result.
Which bits have raised (I'd have thought there would have been more airtime as ive not come across it and it's never mentioned as a brexit benefit) "I am surprised at that as well. Good news then, the EU has to raise its standards to sell to the UK - obviously an unsung Brexit benefit. I wonder of the EU farmers are suffering because of this or perhaps, they will simply sell their products elsewhere... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? Gold plating is when countries took the e.u minimum and built further requirements on top of them and then tried stopping exports from countries or further restricting their own domestic supply. Happened quite a lot in new industries and services.I understand gold plating. U do t know if we have enhanced out import requirements now we are out of the EU. I suspect not with the EU fta or any of the roll over deals. But the aus and NZ we started from scratch. So are our minimums higher than the EU's ? All imports must now meet our domestic production stnandards.( imports requirements) This is in the texts.so aussie meat has a higher standard to meet than EU meat? They formerly did. Not any more. They must all meet uk standards.I meant when importing I to the UK. Aussie farmers have to meet higher standards than EU farmers if they wish to import into Uk. That's how I've read your responses. Oh, I read that as, imports from the EU and Australia have to meet UK standards. Regardless of what their current standards are. Depending on what their standards are now they may have to improve those standards or they may already meet UK standards, in which case no change needed. Basically the entry requirements are the same. Yes they do. They all must meet uk standards. ..and these standards... Are they the same standards that the UK adopted whilst still part of the EU? Or perhaps they were re-written whilst nobody was paying attention .. Or perhaps our government decided that the standards were too high a bar and decided to scrap them along with all the other EU laws. So, whilst I agree with your point of using UK standards... What standards are we actually talking about and do they differ in any way from those that the UK has been using whilst part of the EU? They are the standards the uk set while I the e.u for its own domestic producers. Not the e.u standards. They are higher standards than required by the e.u I think the question being asked is : have the standards EU farmers have to meet to import into the UK increased since brexit ? Yes . So the EU signed up to an FTA that has higher minimums than the SM? Result.
Which bits have raised (I'd have thought there would have been more airtime as ive not come across it and it's never mentioned as a brexit benefit) "I too would have expected to see more on this but as I mostly look at the BBC maybe not a great surprise in retrospect. I am assuming that if the UK accepted EU standards in that deal then they would have to have done the same on any future deals with other countries. Isn't there some world trade rule that says you have to give equal access or am I thinking of something different or just not applicable? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? Gold plating is when countries took the e.u minimum and built further requirements on top of them and then tried stopping exports from countries or further restricting their own domestic supply. Happened quite a lot in new industries and services.I understand gold plating. U do t know if we have enhanced out import requirements now we are out of the EU. I suspect not with the EU fta or any of the roll over deals. But the aus and NZ we started from scratch. So are our minimums higher than the EU's ? All imports must now meet our domestic production stnandards.( imports requirements) This is in the texts.so aussie meat has a higher standard to meet than EU meat? They formerly did. Not any more. They must all meet uk standards.I meant when importing I to the UK. Aussie farmers have to meet higher standards than EU farmers if they wish to import into Uk. That's how I've read your responses. Oh, I read that as, imports from the EU and Australia have to meet UK standards. Regardless of what their current standards are. Depending on what their standards are now they may have to improve those standards or they may already meet UK standards, in which case no change needed. Basically the entry requirements are the same. Yes they do. They all must meet uk standards. ..and these standards... Are they the same standards that the UK adopted whilst still part of the EU? Or perhaps they were re-written whilst nobody was paying attention .. Or perhaps our government decided that the standards were too high a bar and decided to scrap them along with all the other EU laws. So, whilst I agree with your point of using UK standards... What standards are we actually talking about and do they differ in any way from those that the UK has been using whilst part of the EU? They are the standards the uk set while I the e.u for its own domestic producers. Not the e.u standards. They are higher standards than required by the e.u I think the question being asked is : have the standards EU farmers have to meet to import into the UK increased since brexit ? Yes . So the EU signed up to an FTA that has higher minimums than the SM? Result.
Which bits have raised (I'd have thought there would have been more airtime as ive not come across it and it's never mentioned as a brexit benefit)
I too would have expected to see more on this but as I mostly look at the BBC maybe not a great surprise in retrospect. I am assuming that if the UK accepted EU standards in that deal then they would have to have done the same on any future deals with other countries. Isn't there some world trade rule that says you have to give equal access or am I thinking of something different or just not applicable?"You also have to remember that prior to 'that' deal...EU standards WERE the standards that the UK helped to create and adhered to. It is only recently that the UK has been trying to change the laws and standards which in all likelihood will reduce standards and not improve them! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? Gold plating is when countries took the e.u minimum and built further requirements on top of them and then tried stopping exports from countries or further restricting their own domestic supply. Happened quite a lot in new industries and services.I understand gold plating. U do t know if we have enhanced out import requirements now we are out of the EU. I suspect not with the EU fta or any of the roll over deals. But the aus and NZ we started from scratch. So are our minimums higher than the EU's ? All imports must now meet our domestic production stnandards.( imports requirements) This is in the texts.so aussie meat has a higher standard to meet than EU meat? They formerly did. Not any more. They must all meet uk standards.I meant when importing I to the UK. Aussie farmers have to meet higher standards than EU farmers if they wish to import into Uk. That's how I've read your responses. Oh, I read that as, imports from the EU and Australia have to meet UK standards. Regardless of what their current standards are. Depending on what their standards are now they may have to improve those standards or they may already meet UK standards, in which case no change needed. Basically the entry requirements are the same. Yes they do. They all must meet uk standards. ..and these standards... Are they the same standards that the UK adopted whilst still part of the EU? Or perhaps they were re-written whilst nobody was paying attention .. Or perhaps our government decided that the standards were too high a bar and decided to scrap them along with all the other EU laws. So, whilst I agree with your point of using UK standards... What standards are we actually talking about and do they differ in any way from those that the UK has been using whilst part of the EU? They are the standards the uk set while I the e.u for its own domestic producers. Not the e.u standards. They are higher standards than required by the e.u I think the question being asked is : have the standards EU farmers have to meet to import into the UK increased since brexit ? Yes . So the EU signed up to an FTA that has higher minimums than the SM? Result.
Which bits have raised (I'd have thought there would have been more airtime as ive not come across it and it's never mentioned as a brexit benefit)
I too would have expected to see more on this but as I mostly look at the BBC maybe not a great surprise in retrospect. I am assuming that if the UK accepted EU standards in that deal then they would have to have done the same on any future deals with other countries. Isn't there some world trade rule that says you have to give equal access or am I thinking of something different or just not applicable?
You also have to remember that prior to 'that' deal...EU standards WERE the standards that the UK helped to create and adhered to.
It is only recently that the UK has been trying to change the laws and standards which in all likelihood will reduce standards and not improve them!"'Which in all likelihood will reduce standards' I've not checked the claim that standards are now higher but how to you come to that conclusion if standards were just raised? Or is it just one of those things that the lefties and remainers say? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? Gold plating is when countries took the e.u minimum and built further requirements on top of them and then tried stopping exports from countries or further restricting their own domestic supply. Happened quite a lot in new industries and services.I understand gold plating. U do t know if we have enhanced out import requirements now we are out of the EU. I suspect not with the EU fta or any of the roll over deals. But the aus and NZ we started from scratch. So are our minimums higher than the EU's ? All imports must now meet our domestic production stnandards.( imports requirements) This is in the texts.so aussie meat has a higher standard to meet than EU meat? They formerly did. Not any more. They must all meet uk standards.I meant when importing I to the UK. Aussie farmers have to meet higher standards than EU farmers if they wish to import into Uk. That's how I've read your responses. Oh, I read that as, imports from the EU and Australia have to meet UK standards. Regardless of what their current standards are. Depending on what their standards are now they may have to improve those standards or they may already meet UK standards, in which case no change needed. Basically the entry requirements are the same. Yes they do. They all must meet uk standards. ..and these standards... Are they the same standards that the UK adopted whilst still part of the EU? Or perhaps they were re-written whilst nobody was paying attention .. Or perhaps our government decided that the standards were too high a bar and decided to scrap them along with all the other EU laws. So, whilst I agree with your point of using UK standards... What standards are we actually talking about and do they differ in any way from those that the UK has been using whilst part of the EU? They are the standards the uk set while I the e.u for its own domestic producers. Not the e.u standards. They are higher standards than required by the e.u I think the question being asked is : have the standards EU farmers have to meet to import into the UK increased since brexit ? Yes . So the EU signed up to an FTA that has higher minimums than the SM? Result.
Which bits have raised (I'd have thought there would have been more airtime as ive not come across it and it's never mentioned as a brexit benefit)
I too would have expected to see more on this but as I mostly look at the BBC maybe not a great surprise in retrospect. I am assuming that if the UK accepted EU standards in that deal then they would have to have done the same on any future deals with other countries. Isn't there some world trade rule that says you have to give equal access or am I thinking of something different or just not applicable?
You also have to remember that prior to 'that' deal...EU standards WERE the standards that the UK helped to create and adhered to.
It is only recently that the UK has been trying to change the laws and standards which in all likelihood will reduce standards and not improve them!
'Which in all likelihood will reduce standards'
I've not checked the claim that standards are now higher but how to you come to that conclusion if standards were just raised?
Or is it just one of those things that the lefties and remainers say?"Oh my - have we hit a nerve? "Lefties and Remainders" Back to that old chestnut are we? Some people certainly have a complex don't they! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? Gold plating is when countries took the e.u minimum and built further requirements on top of them and then tried stopping exports from countries or further restricting their own domestic supply. Happened quite a lot in new industries and services.I understand gold plating. U do t know if we have enhanced out import requirements now we are out of the EU. I suspect not with the EU fta or any of the roll over deals. But the aus and NZ we started from scratch. So are our minimums higher than the EU's ? All imports must now meet our domestic production stnandards.( imports requirements) This is in the texts.so aussie meat has a higher standard to meet than EU meat? They formerly did. Not any more. They must all meet uk standards.I meant when importing I to the UK. Aussie farmers have to meet higher standards than EU farmers if they wish to import into Uk. That's how I've read your responses. Oh, I read that as, imports from the EU and Australia have to meet UK standards. Regardless of what their current standards are. Depending on what their standards are now they may have to improve those standards or they may already meet UK standards, in which case no change needed. Basically the entry requirements are the same. Yes they do. They all must meet uk standards. ..and these standards... Are they the same standards that the UK adopted whilst still part of the EU? Or perhaps they were re-written whilst nobody was paying attention .. Or perhaps our government decided that the standards were too high a bar and decided to scrap them along with all the other EU laws. So, whilst I agree with your point of using UK standards... What standards are we actually talking about and do they differ in any way from those that the UK has been using whilst part of the EU? They are the standards the uk set while I the e.u for its own domestic producers. Not the e.u standards. They are higher standards than required by the e.u I think the question being asked is : have the standards EU farmers have to meet to import into the UK increased since brexit ? Yes . So the EU signed up to an FTA that has higher minimums than the SM? Result.
Which bits have raised (I'd have thought there would have been more airtime as ive not come across it and it's never mentioned as a brexit benefit)
I too would have expected to see more on this but as I mostly look at the BBC maybe not a great surprise in retrospect. I am assuming that if the UK accepted EU standards in that deal then they would have to have done the same on any future deals with other countries. Isn't there some world trade rule that says you have to give equal access or am I thinking of something different or just not applicable?
You also have to remember that prior to 'that' deal...EU standards WERE the standards that the UK helped to create and adhered to.
It is only recently that the UK has been trying to change the laws and standards which in all likelihood will reduce standards and not improve them!
'Which in all likelihood will reduce standards'
I've not checked the claim that standards are now higher but how to you come to that conclusion if standards were just raised?
Or is it just one of those things that the lefties and remainers say?
Oh my - have we hit a nerve?
"Lefties and Remainders"
Back to that old chestnut are we?
Some people certainly have a complex don't they!"It's usually lefties and remainers that say those things, never seen anyone else say it. Fancy answering how you came to that conclusion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? Gold plating is when countries took the e.u minimum and built further requirements on top of them and then tried stopping exports from countries or further restricting their own domestic supply. Happened quite a lot in new industries and services.I understand gold plating. U do t know if we have enhanced out import requirements now we are out of the EU. I suspect not with the EU fta or any of the roll over deals. But the aus and NZ we started from scratch. So are our minimums higher than the EU's ? All imports must now meet our domestic production stnandards.( imports requirements) This is in the texts.so aussie meat has a higher standard to meet than EU meat? They formerly did. Not any more. They must all meet uk standards.I meant when importing I to the UK. Aussie farmers have to meet higher standards than EU farmers if they wish to import into Uk. That's how I've read your responses. Oh, I read that as, imports from the EU and Australia have to meet UK standards. Regardless of what their current standards are. Depending on what their standards are now they may have to improve those standards or they may already meet UK standards, in which case no change needed. Basically the entry requirements are the same. Yes they do. They all must meet uk standards. ..and these standards... Are they the same standards that the UK adopted whilst still part of the EU? Or perhaps they were re-written whilst nobody was paying attention .. Or perhaps our government decided that the standards were too high a bar and decided to scrap them along with all the other EU laws. So, whilst I agree with your point of using UK standards... What standards are we actually talking about and do they differ in any way from those that the UK has been using whilst part of the EU? They are the standards the uk set while I the e.u for its own domestic producers. Not the e.u standards. They are higher standards than required by the e.u I think the question being asked is : have the standards EU farmers have to meet to import into the UK increased since brexit ? Yes . So the EU signed up to an FTA that has higher minimums than the SM? Result.
Which bits have raised (I'd have thought there would have been more airtime as ive not come across it and it's never mentioned as a brexit benefit)
I am surprised at that as well.
Good news then, the EU has to raise its standards to sell to the UK - obviously an unsung Brexit benefit.
I wonder of the EU farmers are suffering because of this or perhaps, they will simply sell their products elsewhere...
"Some Will already have adapted as production of best practice and will be on the list of approved exporters to the uk. There are the oddities as always. For example the uk doesn't ban meat from the worst 40 clu tries in the world but I don't k now their total exports. And there's mother ones too. For example when they talk about the bonfire of EU regs. One particular regulation rolled over which is abhorrent and i wnt to see banned is froi gras. But we rolled over the ec override of our domestic law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Irish meat factories conform to E.U.standards and have not had to make any upgrades to export meat to the UK. One of the problems with the northern deal was the fact that the UK could lower it's standards and therefore lesser quality products could inter the E.U. through the north into the south"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Irish meat factories conform to E.U.standards and have not had to make any upgrades to export meat to the UK. One of the problems with the northern deal was the fact that the UK could lower it's standards and therefore lesser quality products could inter the E.U. through the north into the south" I'm learning new things on this thread but seems that as long as an EU country meets UK standards then they should not have a problem. I would guess UK and EU standards are very similar so not much to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Irish meat factories conform to E.U.standards and have not had to make any upgrades to export meat to the UK. One of the problems with the northern deal was the fact that the UK could lower it's standards and therefore lesser quality products could inter the E.U. through the north into the south" Sorry but no. The text stops this They may enter northen Ireland which is still on sm but not through the Irish Sea border. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Irish meat factories conform to E.U.standards and have not had to make any upgrades to export meat to the UK. One of the problems with the northern deal was the fact that the UK could lower it's standards and therefore lesser quality products could inter the E.U. through the north into the south" The uk hasn't and won't lower standards, as per the index mentioned above we have higher standards. It lists every uk law above and beyond the e.u law. The e.u is the country looking to lower its standards with PAP food ( feeding collagen and other meat to livestock) while the uk isn't looking to do that. If the e.u passes that law. The farms that do it will not be able to exports to Great Britain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Okay, I tried to do my own digging as I'm finding one answers here slightly wooly at best. From the 2022 benefits of brexit.. "unprecedented animal welfare provisions in our FTA with Australia and at Agreement in Principle with New Zealand." Now without knowing how high that bar is, it's still a positive. It reads like that level of bar raising wasn't folded into the EU fta. Or the other roll over ftas. Which makes sense tbh. " Yes it was a discussion topic when many believed the uk wouldn't sign a trade deal Australia it was one kf their stumbling blocks. As was the reaffirmations to the commitment to reduce carbon. For some reason our government has tried pushing in these factors in trade deals. Maybe to try and push other countries to try and meet our green credentials but for ftas, it was a weird approach. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Okay, I tried to do my own digging as I'm finding one answers here slightly wooly at best. From the 2022 benefits of brexit.. "unprecedented animal welfare provisions in our FTA with Australia and at Agreement in Principle with New Zealand." Now without knowing how high that bar is, it's still a positive. It reads like that level of bar raising wasn't folded into the EU fta. Or the other roll over ftas. Which makes sense tbh. Yes it was a discussion topic when many believed the uk wouldn't sign a trade deal Australia it was one kf their stumbling blocks. As was the reaffirmations to the commitment to reduce carbon. For some reason our government has tried pushing in these factors in trade deals. Maybe to try and push other countries to try and meet our green credentials but for ftas, it was a weird approach. " isn't this the gold plating that helps farmers ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Okay, I tried to do my own digging as I'm finding one answers here slightly wooly at best. From the 2022 benefits of brexit.. "unprecedented animal welfare provisions in our FTA with Australia and at Agreement in Principle with New Zealand." Now without knowing how high that bar is, it's still a positive. It reads like that level of bar raising wasn't folded into the EU fta. Or the other roll over ftas. Which makes sense tbh. Yes it was a discussion topic when many believed the uk wouldn't sign a trade deal Australia it was one kf their stumbling blocks. As was the reaffirmations to the commitment to reduce carbon. For some reason our government has tried pushing in these factors in trade deals. Maybe to try and push other countries to try and meet our green credentials but for ftas, it was a weird approach. isn't this the gold plating that helps farmers ? " Not really it's just us asking in our ftas for other countries to committ what they signed up to at global conventions lile the Paris climate accords. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Okay, I tried to do my own digging as I'm finding one answers here slightly wooly at best. From the 2022 benefits of brexit.. "unprecedented animal welfare provisions in our FTA with Australia and at Agreement in Principle with New Zealand." Now without knowing how high that bar is, it's still a positive. It reads like that level of bar raising wasn't folded into the EU fta. Or the other roll over ftas. Which makes sense tbh. Yes it was a discussion topic when many believed the uk wouldn't sign a trade deal Australia it was one kf their stumbling blocks. As was the reaffirmations to the commitment to reduce carbon. For some reason our government has tried pushing in these factors in trade deals. Maybe to try and push other countries to try and meet our green credentials but for ftas, it was a weird approach. isn't this the gold plating that helps farmers ? Not really it's just us asking in our ftas for other countries to committ what they signed up to at global conventions lile the Paris climate accords." I was talking more about the bit i was quoting. I'm trying to work out what gold plating has taken place since we left the EU to protect farmers and on which treaties. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Okay, I tried to do my own digging as I'm finding one answers here slightly wooly at best. From the 2022 benefits of brexit.. "unprecedented animal welfare provisions in our FTA with Australia and at Agreement in Principle with New Zealand." Now without knowing how high that bar is, it's still a positive. It reads like that level of bar raising wasn't folded into the EU fta. Or the other roll over ftas. Which makes sense tbh. Yes it was a discussion topic when many believed the uk wouldn't sign a trade deal Australia it was one kf their stumbling blocks. As was the reaffirmations to the commitment to reduce carbon. For some reason our government has tried pushing in these factors in trade deals. Maybe to try and push other countries to try and meet our green credentials but for ftas, it was a weird approach. isn't this the gold plating that helps farmers ? Not really it's just us asking in our ftas for other countries to committ what they signed up to at global conventions lile the Paris climate accords.I was talking more about the bit i was quoting. I'm trying to work out what gold plating has taken place since we left the EU to protect farmers and on which treaties. " It wouldn't be gold plating now. The gold plating was taking e.u laws and building on them. They are now uk laws and requirements. So no gold plating can take place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Okay, I tried to do my own digging as I'm finding one answers here slightly wooly at best. From the 2022 benefits of brexit.. "unprecedented animal welfare provisions in our FTA with Australia and at Agreement in Principle with New Zealand." Now without knowing how high that bar is, it's still a positive. It reads like that level of bar raising wasn't folded into the EU fta. Or the other roll over ftas. Which makes sense tbh. Yes it was a discussion topic when many believed the uk wouldn't sign a trade deal Australia it was one kf their stumbling blocks. As was the reaffirmations to the commitment to reduce carbon. For some reason our government has tried pushing in these factors in trade deals. Maybe to try and push other countries to try and meet our green credentials but for ftas, it was a weird approach. isn't this the gold plating that helps farmers ? Not really it's just us asking in our ftas for other countries to committ what they signed up to at global conventions lile the Paris climate accords.I was talking more about the bit i was quoting. I'm trying to work out what gold plating has taken place since we left the EU to protect farmers and on which treaties. It wouldn't be gold plating now. The gold plating was taking e.u laws and building on them. They are now uk laws and requirements. So no gold plating can take place." let's ignore the specific term especially as someone said gold plating could y take place while we were on the EU,so it makes it a redundant term. I'm looking for examples of where the standards we have on those exporting to the UK has increased in our FTA versus when we were on the EU, so that we have helped protect our farmers. Irrc that's where this part of the thread all started, in saying we couldnt "gold plate" while in the EU. I thought someone was coming up with a benefit. And it feels like there may be one (according to HMG) in the aus and NZ fta (but not EU). I'm just not sure how big. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Okay, I tried to do my own digging as I'm finding one answers here slightly wooly at best. From the 2022 benefits of brexit.. "unprecedented animal welfare provisions in our FTA with Australia and at Agreement in Principle with New Zealand." Now without knowing how high that bar is, it's still a positive. It reads like that level of bar raising wasn't folded into the EU fta. Or the other roll over ftas. Which makes sense tbh. Yes it was a discussion topic when many believed the uk wouldn't sign a trade deal Australia it was one kf their stumbling blocks. As was the reaffirmations to the commitment to reduce carbon. For some reason our government has tried pushing in these factors in trade deals. Maybe to try and push other countries to try and meet our green credentials but for ftas, it was a weird approach. isn't this the gold plating that helps farmers ? Not really it's just us asking in our ftas for other countries to committ what they signed up to at global conventions lile the Paris climate accords.I was talking more about the bit i was quoting. I'm trying to work out what gold plating has taken place since we left the EU to protect farmers and on which treaties. It wouldn't be gold plating now. The gold plating was taking e.u laws and building on them. They are now uk laws and requirements. So no gold plating can take place.let's ignore the specific term especially as someone said gold plating could y take place while we were on the EU,so it makes it a redundant term. I'm looking for examples of where the standards we have on those exporting to the UK has increased in our FTA versus when we were on the EU, so that we have helped protect our farmers. Irrc that's where this part of the thread all started, in saying we couldnt "gold plate" while in the EU. I thought someone was coming up with a benefit. And it feels like there may be one (according to HMG) in the aus and NZ fta (but not EU). I'm just not sure how big. " It's in the text. That the imports to great Britain ( should use uk as Ireland still part of sm) must meet the importers standards. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The benefit is all meat now meet British standards of production " is that true of EU meat being imported into the UK ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The benefit is all meat now meet British standards of production is that true of EU meat being imported into the UK ? " I have literally answered this 8 times in this thread now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The benefit is all meat now meet British standards of production is that true of EU meat being imported into the UK ? I have literally answered this 8 times in this thread now " We don’t check any meat being imported from the EU | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The benefit is all meat now meet British standards of production is that true of EU meat being imported into the UK ? I have literally answered this 8 times in this thread now " i undertook that you feel you have but I still don't fully understand any of your answers. It's a simple yes/no Ninth time lucky ? Or anybody else, please answer on his behalf. I'm okay with being shown to be crap at comprehension! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will traders have to comply with two different sets of regulations and compliance procedures if they want to serve both the EU and UK markets? As of 1 January 2021, the Union and the United Kingdom will be two separate regulatory and legal spaces. This means that all products exported from the EU to the UK will have to comply with UK technical regulations and will be subject to any applicable regulatory compliance checks and controls. Similarly, all products imported from the UK to the EU will need to comply with EU technical regulations and will be subject to all applicable regulatory compliance obligations, checks and controls for safety, health and other public policy purposes. " thats obvious. Still no idea if our technical requirements have changed since we left the EU. Let alone how. No worries tho. I'm tapping out now, I wont ask for a tenth answer! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still no idea if our technical requirements have changed since we left the EU. Let alone how. No worries tho. I'm tapping out now, I wont ask for a tenth answer! " About 8 years ago we had animal welfare and meat production standards that were higher than those set by EU law. All UK farmers had to meet those higher UK standards. Producers in other EU countries did not, but they were allowed to send meat to the UK under the less stringent EU rules, and the UK couldn't prevent that. Now we've left the EU, and our own rules govern what can be imported. The animal welfare and meat production rules haven't changed, but now all imports must meet our higher standards. That means that meat coming from Australia must meet our standards, not the lesser ones that the EU still has. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now what point am I building to. Well when we were members of the e.u we couldn't "gold plate" to eliminate imports, we had to accept e.u minimum requirements. So British farmers/abattoirs/ retailers were ALWAYS at a disadvantage. This is partly why we flag Britosh products and use the red tractor. Domestic uk farmers were MORE at threat IN the e.u. They survived though. The average price of uk meat vs e.u competitors was ALWAYS higher. And yet farming lived on. Now all exports HAVE to meet our regulatory requirements. So who is more threatened by the oz and mz ftas The uk farmers who always had to produce at uk farmers and sold meat at a more expensive cost? Or The e.u farmers who were cheaper and didn't have to meet uk standards? Or The e.u farmers did we gold plate the aus or NZ deals ? I have no idea. Or enhace the EU deal versus where we were ? Gold plating is when countries took the e.u minimum and built further requirements on top of them and then tried stopping exports from countries or further restricting their own domestic supply. Happened quite a lot in new industries and services.I understand gold plating. U do t know if we have enhanced out import requirements now we are out of the EU. I suspect not with the EU fta or any of the roll over deals. But the aus and NZ we started from scratch. So are our minimums higher than the EU's ? All imports must now meet our domestic production stnandards.( imports requirements) This is in the texts." It is not "in the texts" according to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Report on Australia FTA: Food and Agriculture "35. One of the main criticisms we heard of the FTA is that the UK Government agreed to tariff free access to the UK market for Australian goods without requiring that those goods meet equivalent standards to those governing UK production.90 These standards include those around animal welfare, animal health and the environment." "However, the report concluded that the FTA would lead to increased imports of Australian products made at lower costs due to the use of pesticides that the UK does not allow domestic farmers to use; and that it might also lead to an increase in imports of lower-cost Australian grown genetically-modified (GM) canola (rapeseed).102" '39. The chapter does not, however, require either party to make any changes to its animal welfare practices. Instead, both parties “endeavour” to improve their animal welfare performance and agree to enforce existing animal welfare laws and not to weaken them in order to encourage trade or investment.105 This so-called ‘non-regression’ clause has been criticised by groups that believe Australia already has lower standards than the UK. As the Humane League UK put it, the impact of the clause is limited “given that Australia’s animal welfare standards are already so low.”106 The chapter of the FTA is also explicitly exempted from dispute settlement, meaning neither side can act to enforce its requirements through imposing trade sanctions if one side regresses in its animal welfare protection.107" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is all a bit confusing? Morley spends multiple posts (nine?) trying to convince everyone that Aussie farmers products must meet the higher UK standards and yet... UK farmers have themselves criticised the FTA! There are reports on how the deal “sold out UK farmers”! The aussies themselves have been declaring how one sided the deal is in their favour (in their media)! Easy then posts extracts from the relevant committee that clearly shows aussie farmers do not have to meet UK standards (and all the cost factors therefore at play) and that is the basis of concern! So is this a case of Morley being right and pretty much everyone else being wrong? Again? Bit of a pattern forming!" It really is confusing because the following is also in that committee report but wasn't posted: "46. Products that do not meet UK SPS requirements will not be allowed to enter the UK—for example there will continue to be a ban on exports of hormone-treated beef to the UK from Australia, and the UK requires that imported products conform with its permitted pesticide safety limits, known as maximum residue levels (MRLs)." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is all a bit confusing? Morley spends multiple posts (nine?) trying to convince everyone that Aussie farmers products must meet the higher UK standards and yet... UK farmers have themselves criticised the FTA! There are reports on how the deal “sold out UK farmers”! The aussies themselves have been declaring how one sided the deal is in their favour (in their media)! Easy then posts extracts from the relevant committee that clearly shows aussie farmers do not have to meet UK standards (and all the cost factors therefore at play) and that is the basis of concern! So is this a case of Morley being right and pretty much everyone else being wrong? Again? Bit of a pattern forming!" In the above. I have quoted the European commission saying what i say. Unions can criticise all they want. They can't fundamentally alter what is in the text. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is all a bit confusing? Morley spends multiple posts (nine?) trying to convince everyone that Aussie farmers products must meet the higher UK standards and yet... UK farmers have themselves criticised the FTA! There are reports on how the deal “sold out UK farmers”! The aussies themselves have been declaring how one sided the deal is in their favour (in their media)! Easy then posts extracts from the relevant committee that clearly shows aussie farmers do not have to meet UK standards (and all the cost factors therefore at play) and that is the basis of concern! So is this a case of Morley being right and pretty much everyone else being wrong? Again? Bit of a pattern forming! In the above. I have quoted the European commission saying what i say. Unions can criticise all they want. They can't fundamentally alter what is in the text. " What about everyone else (beyond the NUF)? What about what Easy quoted from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is all a bit confusing? Morley spends multiple posts (nine?) trying to convince everyone that Aussie farmers products must meet the higher UK standards and yet... UK farmers have themselves criticised the FTA! There are reports on how the deal “sold out UK farmers”! The aussies themselves have been declaring how one sided the deal is in their favour (in their media)! Easy then posts extracts from the relevant committee that clearly shows aussie farmers do not have to meet UK standards (and all the cost factors therefore at play) and that is the basis of concern! So is this a case of Morley being right and pretty much everyone else being wrong? Again? Bit of a pattern forming! In the above. I have quoted the European commission saying what i say. Unions can criticise all they want. They can't fundamentally alter what is in the text. What about everyone else (beyond the NUF)? What about what Easy quoted from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee?" This is a committee. These are I believe. MPs querying concerns of the bodies. Again Thus does not alter the text of the fta. This is believe comes from them quoting point 90 in the references. The references again make no mention of this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is all a bit confusing? Morley spends multiple posts (nine?) trying to convince everyone that Aussie farmers products must meet the higher UK standards and yet... UK farmers have themselves criticised the FTA! There are reports on how the deal “sold out UK farmers”! The aussies themselves have been declaring how one sided the deal is in their favour (in their media)! Easy then posts extracts from the relevant committee that clearly shows aussie farmers do not have to meet UK standards (and all the cost factors therefore at play) and that is the basis of concern! So is this a case of Morley being right and pretty much everyone else being wrong? Again? Bit of a pattern forming! In the above. I have quoted the European commission saying what i say. Unions can criticise all they want. They can't fundamentally alter what is in the text. What about everyone else (beyond the NUF)? What about what Easy quoted from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee? This is a committee. These are I believe. MPs querying concerns of the bodies. Again Thus does not alter the text of the fta. This is believe comes from them quoting point 90 in the references. The references again make no mention of this. " Select Committees are there to provide additional scrutiny after the event (normally). They are always cross party. They are very serious (just look at the grilling Johnson took). They raised concerns and from the extract above it shows that your point on standards is not as you have positioned it (I believe their level of scrutiny over the text would be far higher and more in depth than yours and supported by legal teams and researchers). Why are the aussies themselves so vocal about the deal being better for them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
