FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > US or EU?
US or EU?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"An economic advisor to Trump has stated that in choosing trade deals, the UK must decide whether to go towards the EU socialist model or towards the US free market model. We can't do both it appears. So which way should we jump if it comes down to a choice? " Depends on the numbers | |||
| |||
"we should stay out of any squabble between trump and europe .... brown nosing the doodle dandies has caused enough shit" True, the whole point of Brexit was to become sovereign (apparently) so why are we being influenced by foreign powers, | |||
| |||
| |||
"An economic advisor to Trump has stated that in choosing trade deals, the UK must decide whether to go towards the EU socialist model or towards the US free market model. We can't do both it appears. So which way should we jump if it comes down to a choice? " I personally don't want substandard US food produce here, I don't want their big pharma buying into the NHS. Deregulation of standards isn't in the interests of British people. Also why are Americans calling the EU "socialist"? Just makes them sound like fucking morons. Another reason to avoid. | |||
"An economic advisor to Trump has stated that in choosing trade deals, the UK must decide whether to go towards the EU socialist model or towards the US free market model. We can't do both it appears. So which way should we jump if it comes down to a choice? I personally don't want substandard US food produce here, I don't want their big pharma buying into the NHS. Deregulation of standards isn't in the interests of British people. Also why are Americans calling the EU "socialist"? Just makes them sound like fucking morons. Another reason to avoid. " True, I thought I read that Europe is turning to the right if anything. | |||
"An economic advisor to Trump has stated that in choosing trade deals, the UK must decide whether to go towards the EU socialist model or towards the US free market model. We can't do both it appears. So which way should we jump if it comes down to a choice? I personally don't want substandard US food produce here, I don't want their big pharma buying into the NHS. Deregulation of standards isn't in the interests of British people. Also why are Americans calling the EU "socialist"? Just makes them sound like fucking morons. Another reason to avoid. True, I thought I read that Europe is turning to the right if anything." We can get hung up on labels, but the EU has definitely been to the left in doctrine and policy. The swerve to the right across Europe might actually be a reaction to that? The US, especially under Trump, will be aggressively capitalist. We will probably have to align with one or the other. So SKS might yet have a stark choice. | |||
| |||
"The European model is completely doomed, that's clear from every economic and social indicator. Its quite possible for UK to embrace its own model without beggaring ourselves to the US. We could be an example to the rest of Europe as we've been so many times in our history." Indeed. What about the idea of a common market in Europe where goods can flow across borders thereby boosting trade and prosperity? That would be quite a thing eh? | |||
"The European model is completely doomed, that's clear from every economic and social indicator. Its quite possible for UK to embrace its own model without beggaring ourselves to the US. We could be an example to the rest of Europe as we've been so many times in our history. Indeed. What about the idea of a common market in Europe where goods can flow across borders thereby boosting trade and prosperity? That would be quite a thing eh?" The common market was an excellent idea; unfortunately the EU tried to turn it into a superstate. | |||
"The European model is completely doomed, that's clear from every economic and social indicator. Its quite possible for UK to embrace its own model without beggaring ourselves to the US. We could be an example to the rest of Europe as we've been so many times in our history." ....so tell us how....? Jacob Rees mogg perhaps...the Australia model...? | |||
"An economic advisor to Trump has stated that in choosing trade deals, the UK must decide whether to go towards the EU socialist model or towards the US free market model. We can't do both it appears. So which way should we jump if it comes down to a choice? I personally don't want substandard US food produce here, I don't want their big pharma buying into the NHS. Deregulation of standards isn't in the interests of British people. Also why are Americans calling the EU "socialist"? Just makes them sound like fucking morons. Another reason to avoid. True, I thought I read that Europe is turning to the right if anything. We can get hung up on labels, but the EU has definitely been to the left in doctrine and policy. The swerve to the right across Europe might actually be a reaction to that? The US, especially under Trump, will be aggressively capitalist. We will probably have to align with one or the other. So SKS might yet have a stark choice." Let's hope he chooses people over corporate profit. | |||
"The European model is completely doomed, that's clear from every economic and social indicator. Its quite possible for UK to embrace its own model without beggaring ourselves to the US. We could be an example to the rest of Europe as we've been so many times in our history. Indeed. What about the idea of a common market in Europe where goods can flow across borders thereby boosting trade and prosperity? That would be quite a thing eh? The common market was an excellent idea; unfortunately the EU tried to turn it into a superstate." Exactly this. People believed the "superstate" bullshit and voted us to be £100 billion a year worse off. | |||
"An economic advisor to Trump has stated that in choosing trade deals, the UK must decide whether to go towards the EU socialist model or towards the US free market model. We can't do both it appears. So which way should we jump if it comes down to a choice? I personally don't want substandard US food produce here, I don't want their big pharma buying into the NHS. Deregulation of standards isn't in the interests of British people. Also why are Americans calling the EU "socialist"? Just makes them sound like fucking morons. Another reason to avoid. True, I thought I read that Europe is turning to the right if anything. We can get hung up on labels, but the EU has definitely been to the left in doctrine and policy. The swerve to the right across Europe might actually be a reaction to that? The US, especially under Trump, will be aggressively capitalist. We will probably have to align with one or the other. So SKS might yet have a stark choice. Let's hope he chooses people over corporate profit." hahahahahahaha oh your being serious, he will choose corporate profit everytime just because he happens to be leader of labour does not meen he is going to do anything that is for the good of the majority of the country, he will keep his owners happy and thats about it, bit like the last lot of clowns | |||
"An economic advisor to Trump has stated that in choosing trade deals, the UK must decide whether to go towards the EU socialist model or towards the US free market model. We can't do both it appears. So which way should we jump if it comes down to a choice? " Why can't we trade with both. We do now so why not in the future. We already do more trade with America than any other country and by quite a distance. All without ever having a deal with them. At the same time the UK has a trade deal with the Eu | |||
"An economic advisor to Trump has stated that in choosing trade deals, the UK must decide whether to go towards the EU socialist model or towards the US free market model. We can't do both it appears. So which way should we jump if it comes down to a choice? I personally don't want substandard US food produce here, I don't want their big pharma buying into the NHS. Deregulation of standards isn't in the interests of British people. Also why are Americans calling the EU "socialist"? Just makes them sound like fucking morons. Another reason to avoid. True, I thought I read that Europe is turning to the right if anything. We can get hung up on labels, but the EU has definitely been to the left in doctrine and policy. The swerve to the right across Europe might actually be a reaction to that? The US, especially under Trump, will be aggressively capitalist. We will probably have to align with one or the other. So SKS might yet have a stark choice. Let's hope he chooses people over corporate profit.hahahahahahaha oh your being serious, he will choose corporate profit everytime just because he happens to be leader of labour does not meen he is going to do anything that is for the good of the majority of the country, he will keep his owners happy and thats about it, bit like the last lot of clowns" Probably, but we can still hope. | |||
| |||
"The European model is completely doomed, that's clear from every economic and social indicator. Its quite possible for UK to embrace its own model without beggaring ourselves to the US. We could be an example to the rest of Europe as we've been so many times in our history. Indeed. What about the idea of a common market in Europe where goods can flow across borders thereby boosting trade and prosperity? That would be quite a thing eh? The common market was an excellent idea; unfortunately the EU tried to turn it into a superstate." really? .... wow that went under the radar | |||
"we should stay out of any squabble between trump and europe .... brown nosing the doodle dandies has caused enough shit True, the whole point of Brexit was to become sovereign (apparently) so why are we being influenced by foreign powers, " Seriously? Don’t you remember how Blair behaved with the US? | |||
"An economic advisor to Trump has stated that in choosing trade deals, the UK must decide whether to go towards the EU socialist model or towards the US free market model. We can't do both it appears. So which way should we jump if it comes down to a choice? I personally don't want substandard US food produce here, I don't want their big pharma buying into the NHS. Deregulation of standards isn't in the interests of British people. Also why are Americans calling the EU "socialist"? Just makes them sound like fucking morons. Another reason to avoid. True, I thought I read that Europe is turning to the right if anything. We can get hung up on labels, but the EU has definitely been to the left in doctrine and policy. The swerve to the right across Europe might actually be a reaction to that? The US, especially under Trump, will be aggressively capitalist. We will probably have to align with one or the other. So SKS might yet have a stark choice. Let's hope he chooses people over corporate profit." Eh. No. | |||
"An economic advisor to Trump has stated that in choosing trade deals, the UK must decide whether to go towards the EU socialist model or towards the US free market model. We can't do both it appears. So which way should we jump if it comes down to a choice? I personally don't want substandard US food produce here, I don't want their big pharma buying into the NHS. Deregulation of standards isn't in the interests of British people. Also why are Americans calling the EU "socialist"? Just makes them sound like fucking morons. Another reason to avoid. True, I thought I read that Europe is turning to the right if anything. We can get hung up on labels, but the EU has definitely been to the left in doctrine and policy. The swerve to the right across Europe might actually be a reaction to that? The US, especially under Trump, will be aggressively capitalist. We will probably have to align with one or the other. So SKS might yet have a stark choice. Let's hope he chooses people over corporate profit. Eh. No. " I know he probably won't. But would be good if he did. | |||
| |||
"An economic advisor to Trump has stated that in choosing trade deals, the UK must decide whether to go towards the EU socialist model or towards the US free market model. We can't do both it appears. So which way should we jump if it comes down to a choice? I personally don't want substandard US food produce here, I don't want their big pharma buying into the NHS. Deregulation of standards isn't in the interests of British people. Also why are Americans calling the EU "socialist"? Just makes them sound like fucking morons. Another reason to avoid. True, I thought I read that Europe is turning to the right if anything. We can get hung up on labels, but the EU has definitely been to the left in doctrine and policy. The swerve to the right across Europe might actually be a reaction to that? The US, especially under Trump, will be aggressively capitalist. We will probably have to align with one or the other. So SKS might yet have a stark choice. Let's hope he chooses people over corporate profit. Eh. No. I know he probably won't. But would be good if he did. " In a fantasy world, maybe | |||
"In 2008 the EU and US economies were the same size. Today the US economy is 50% bigger than the EU economy. That trend will continue. Aligning ourselves to the EU will condemn the UK to the same future of economic stagnation and mediocrity. " ...didn't you people leave the EU? | |||
"In 2008 the EU and US economies were the same size. Today the US economy is 50% bigger than the EU economy. That trend will continue. Aligning ourselves to the EU will condemn the UK to the same future of economic stagnation and mediocrity. ...didn't you people leave the EU?" Yes and given the appalling economic performance in the Eurozone thank goodness. I see the European Commission downgraded EU growth forecasts again yesterday (not that anyone believes anything the EC says anyway). | |||
| |||
| |||
"An economic advisor to Trump has stated that in choosing trade deals, the UK must decide whether to go towards the EU socialist model or towards the US free market model. We can't do both it appears. So which way should we jump if it comes down to a choice? " There is a UK vote on this right now, where everyone in the UK is entitled to vote Turns out the majority of the UK have voted in favour of the USA so far. Have you voted yet? | |||
"In 2008 the EU and US economies were the same size. Today the US economy is 50% bigger than the EU economy. That trend will continue. Aligning ourselves to the EU will condemn the UK to the same future of economic stagnation and mediocrity. ...didn't you people leave the EU? Yes and given the appalling economic performance in the Eurozone thank goodness. I see the European Commission downgraded EU growth forecasts again yesterday (not that anyone believes anything the EC says anyway)." So you think there will be growth. | |||
"An economic advisor to Trump has stated that in choosing trade deals, the UK must decide whether to go towards the EU socialist model or towards the US free market model. We can't do both it appears. So which way should we jump if it comes down to a choice? There is a UK vote on this right now, where everyone in the UK is entitled to vote Turns out the majority of the UK have voted in favour of the USA so far. Have you voted yet?" What? | |||
"? There is a UK vote on this right now, where everyone in the UK is entitled to vote Turns out the majority of the UK have voted in favour of the USA so far. Have you voted yet? What?" What part of the above do you not understand? | |||
"? There is a UK vote on this right now, where everyone in the UK is entitled to vote Turns out the majority of the UK have voted in favour of the USA so far. Have you voted yet? What? What part of the above do you not understand?" All of it What vote are you talking about? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Could it not all change toot sweet though? Germany likely to have a snap election soon. France not too far behind & both likely to move further to the right. If you believe that Amsterdam was a set up by Mossad infiltrators to boost support or at least believe the MSM reporting was at the very least disinformation as many Dutch seem to then it may backfire pushing them further right. We could by the end of the second year of this parliament be one of the few major European economies still led by the left. Then Trump may say "Fck them, we'll deal with the mainlanders". S" Trump is likely to pander to whomever massages his super fragile ego the most. Those in charge of negotiating trade deals will be doing their best to rebuild after the carnage he causes as he travels around. Like last time. | |||
"An economic advisor to Trump has stated that in choosing trade deals, the UK must decide whether to go towards the EU socialist model or towards the US free market model. We can't do both it appears. So which way should we jump if it comes down to a choice? " The US. | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer." Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack " How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? | |||
"In 2008 the EU and US economies were the same size. Today the US economy is 50% bigger than the EU economy. That trend will continue. Aligning ourselves to the EU will condemn the UK to the same future of economic stagnation and mediocrity. " Leaving the EU has led to UK stagnation and mediocrity. Let's get the story correct. | |||
"In 2008 the EU and US economies were the same size. Today the US economy is 50% bigger than the EU economy. That trend will continue. Aligning ourselves to the EU will condemn the UK to the same future of economic stagnation and mediocrity. Leaving the EU has led to UK stagnation and mediocrity. Let's get the story correct." Is the EU booming? | |||
| |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU?" Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer" That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. | |||
| |||
| |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. " I don't know the shellfish example, other than that pre-Brexit, shellfish were treated in EU before being sold. The only possible why I can see if working for a UK producer would be to have a production line in The UK & another in The EU. You already see examples of products being recalled as part of the factory used peanuts in case of an allergy; best solution would be to have 2 production line physically apart. For the EU based production line, be good for the EU as will be bringing employment, tax to the EU...another Brexit benefit! | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer" Does it have to be? Usually this will result in some brands using the US lines and other brands using the production lines for EU standards, the former being cheaper while the latter being more expensive. People can choose whichever they want. | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. " you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer Does it have to be? Usually this will result in some brands using the US lines and other brands using the production lines for EU standards, the former being cheaper while the latter being more expensive. People can choose whichever they want." From personal experience; having 2x production lines working with different standards will be a nightmare. Also, it isn't as simple as "the customer can choose"; taking the meat pie example, if you've a school canteen, which would you want for your child; a certified healthy option, same as currently (EU/UK standard) or cheap, unhealthy (US standard, at least compared to current levels)? Also, your point re customer chooses will destroy the traditional farming environment in The UK; it will be a race to the bottom to get costs down to US meat prices, mainly small farming being destroyed. And I've not mentioned The NHS which Trump explicitly told Theresa May would be on the table for any possible trade deal | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. " If you have US standard agricultural produce in your food's production supply chain which are banned by The EU (such as gene modified grain, hormone treated beef, chlorinated chicken, etc.) how are you going to guarantee that none of that goes into product headed to The EU? It would be an absolute nightmare to prove that not 1 gram of US standard product has entered | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. " If our existing obligations to, in this instance, good safety standards, then we can't do the deals the Americans want. | |||
" Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer Does it have to be? Usually this will result in some brands using the US lines and other brands using the production lines for EU standards, the former being cheaper while the latter being more expensive. People can choose whichever they want. From personal experience; having 2x production lines working with different standards will be a nightmare. Also, it isn't as simple as "the customer can choose"; taking the meat pie example, if you've a school canteen, which would you want for your child; a certified healthy option, same as currently (EU/UK standard) or cheap, unhealthy (US standard, at least compared to current levels)? Also, your point re customer chooses will destroy the traditional farming environment in The UK; it will be a race to the bottom to get costs down to US meat prices, mainly small farming being destroyed. And I've not mentioned The NHS which Trump explicitly told Theresa May would be on the table for any possible trade deal" Doesn't US have both harmone treated and the EU standards beef already? As for schools, it's up to the schools to decide based on what they can afford. There isn't any science so far that proves hormone treated beef is bad for us. End of the day, if something is more expensive, it means the supply doesn't meet the demand well enough. | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. If you have US standard agricultural produce in your food's production supply chain which are banned by The EU (such as gene modified grain, hormone treated beef, chlorinated chicken, etc.) how are you going to guarantee that none of that goes into product headed to The EU? It would be an absolute nightmare to prove that not 1 gram of US standard product has entered " It is for the manufacturer to provide these guarantees, contracts will be drawn up to provide assurances or no deal will be in place. The ROI will drive the appetite for this, it is not a blocker for further trade deals. | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. If our existing obligations to, in this instance, good safety standards, then we can't do the deals the Americans want. " You are not considering the UK as a supplier who has multiple options, to service multiple customers. | |||
" Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer Does it have to be? Usually this will result in some brands using the US lines and other brands using the production lines for EU standards, the former being cheaper while the latter being more expensive. People can choose whichever they want. From personal experience; having 2x production lines working with different standards will be a nightmare. Also, it isn't as simple as "the customer can choose"; taking the meat pie example, if you've a school canteen, which would you want for your child; a certified healthy option, same as currently (EU/UK standard) or cheap, unhealthy (US standard, at least compared to current levels)? Also, your point re customer chooses will destroy the traditional farming environment in The UK; it will be a race to the bottom to get costs down to US meat prices, mainly small farming being destroyed. And I've not mentioned The NHS which Trump explicitly told Theresa May would be on the table for any possible trade deal Doesn't US have both harmone treated and the EU standards beef already? As for schools, it's up to the schools to decide based on what they can afford. There isn't any science so far that proves hormone treated beef is bad for us. End of the day, if something is more expensive, it means the supply doesn't meet the demand well enough." Yes, but the EU standard beef is more expensive, as the feed, slaughter, treatment, storage conditions are different to standard US conditions. Re schools: then they will take the US product. Re science: this is incorrect; there have been several studies since the 1980s linking hormone treated meat to high incidences of cancer & other diseases. See here: https://food.ec.europa.eu/food-safety/chemical-safety/hormones-meat_en Also: the antibiotics used in cattle are controlled in Ireland (rest of the EU I don't know), which impacts overall animal & herd health; they have been all shown to be OK then for human consumption; in The USA, antibiotics are more varied & freely given, which also impacts the standard of the meat | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. If you have US standard agricultural produce in your food's production supply chain which are banned by The EU (such as gene modified grain, hormone treated beef, chlorinated chicken, etc.) how are you going to guarantee that none of that goes into product headed to The EU? It would be an absolute nightmare to prove that not 1 gram of US standard product has entered It is for the manufacturer to provide these guarantees, contracts will be drawn up to provide assurances or no deal will be in place. The ROI will drive the appetite for this, it is not a blocker for further trade deals. " Then expect more red tape at UK/EU borders for food checks & lower demand for UK food exports, due to EU (& UK) customers not trusting UK food, similar to the BSE crisis. I don't think you realize how passionate Europeans are about their food; no way will they accept US standard agricultural produce...maybe as a treat when in NYC but not for their day-to-day meals | |||
| |||
"Is the EU still selling horsemeat as beef ? " Actually, that is a perfect example of EU quality system of farm-to-fork. Lads tried (& succeed) to sell horsemeat as beef; was detected by Irish vets (via DNA testing), who could then link it to (I believe) a Dutch buyer who was sourcing the "meat" from Eastern Europe; lads involved were caught & convicted. Obviously, shouldn't have happened in the first place, but the responsible guys were caught, via the EU systems | |||
"Is the EU still selling horsemeat as beef ? Actually, that is a perfect example of EU quality system of farm-to-fork. Lads tried (& succeed) to sell horsemeat as beef; was detected by Irish vets (via DNA testing), who could then link it to (I believe) a Dutch buyer who was sourcing the "meat" from Eastern Europe; lads involved were caught & convicted. Obviously, shouldn't have happened in the first place, but the responsible guys were caught, via the EU systems" So the food chain was successfully contaminated affecting multiple major retailers and this was a success for food standards? Do you think the US doesn't have any such checks ? The idea that EU food standards are notably superior to the US is just not born out by comparisons of bacterial infections such as salmonella or listeria, both of which are more common in EU. The ban on beef growth hormones is really just a protectionist measure with little scientific fact behind it, same as GM crops. | |||
| |||
| |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. If our existing obligations to, in this instance, good safety standards, then we can't do the deals the Americans want. You are not considering the UK as a supplier who has multiple options, to service multiple customers. " Not sure why the EU would by goods from us, or why the British population, British farmers, British producers would want to lower our food safety standards for the benefit of the American food produce industry. | |||
"After watching the whole media circus that's gone on for the last year it makes me really grateful we don't have a political head of state. When comparing our dignified transfer to theirs I'm so glad we don't have that system, It's reckoned to cost half a billion to gain the presidency ? What a waste of resources?" half a billion yea and the rest, kamala had a billion to play with and blew through it in about 3 and a half months and managed to go 20 mill into debt and didnt get any where near winning | |||
| |||
"Is the EU still selling horsemeat as beef ? Actually, that is a perfect example of EU quality system of farm-to-fork. Lads tried (& succeed) to sell horsemeat as beef; was detected by Irish vets (via DNA testing), who could then link it to (I believe) a Dutch buyer who was sourcing the "meat" from Eastern Europe; lads involved were caught & convicted. Obviously, shouldn't have happened in the first place, but the responsible guys were caught, via the EU systems So the food chain was successfully contaminated affecting multiple major retailers and this was a success for food standards? Do you think the US doesn't have any such checks ? The idea that EU food standards are notably superior to the US is just not born out by comparisons of bacterial infections such as salmonella or listeria, both of which are more common in EU. The ban on beef growth hormones is really just a protectionist measure with little scientific fact behind it, same as GM crops." Yes, the USA has checks..But Google the allowable amount of rat droppings the FDA allow in their food. Well how would you describe it? The system was compromised via corruption, bribery; the MSs responded, removed the affected product & informed their populations & brought the guys to justice. Can you show a similar example from the USA? Where is the your data showing EU listeria & salmonella are higher in The EU vs The USA? Please post it. Animal welfare is much better in EU/UK, which reduces significantly salmonella contamination. I know comparisons are different but seen studies showing 1 in 6 USA citizens suffer food poisoning one a year vs. 1 in 30 in UK/EU Re growth hormone; I've already posted a link showing studies since the 1980s showing growth hormones linked to higher incidences of cancer & other diseases in lab conditions. | |||
"? There is a UK vote on this right now, where everyone in the UK is entitled to vote Turns out the majority of the UK have voted in favour of the USA so far. Have you voted yet? What? What part of the above do you not understand? All of it What vote are you talking about?" ...I can't find the alleged vote either...hahaha | |||
"Is the EU still selling horsemeat as beef ? Actually, that is a perfect example of EU quality system of farm-to-fork. Lads tried (& succeed) to sell horsemeat as beef; was detected by Irish vets (via DNA testing), who could then link it to (I believe) a Dutch buyer who was sourcing the "meat" from Eastern Europe; lads involved were caught & convicted. Obviously, shouldn't have happened in the first place, but the responsible guys were caught, via the EU systems So the food chain was successfully contaminated affecting multiple major retailers and this was a success for food standards? Do you think the US doesn't have any such checks ? The idea that EU food standards are notably superior to the US is just not born out by comparisons of bacterial infections such as salmonella or listeria, both of which are more common in EU. The ban on beef growth hormones is really just a protectionist measure with little scientific fact behind it, same as GM crops. Yes, the USA has checks..But Google the allowable amount of rat droppings the FDA allow in their food. Well how would you describe it? The system was compromised via corruption, bribery; the MSs responded, removed the affected product & informed their populations & brought the guys to justice. Can you show a similar example from the USA? Where is the your data showing EU listeria & salmonella are higher in The EU vs The USA? Please post it. Animal welfare is much better in EU/UK, which reduces significantly salmonella contamination. I know comparisons are different but seen studies showing 1 in 6 USA citizens suffer food poisoning one a year vs. 1 in 30 in UK/EU Re growth hormone; I've already posted a link showing studies since the 1980s showing growth hormones linked to higher incidences of cancer & other diseases in lab conditions." You posted a link from the EU itself on growth hormones, not an independent source. The figures on salmonella and listeria are freely available with a simple Google search. Animal welfare standards are appalling in the EU, especially Southern Europe. | |||
"Is the EU still selling horsemeat as beef ? Actually, that is a perfect example of EU quality system of farm-to-fork. Lads tried (& succeed) to sell horsemeat as beef; was detected by Irish vets (via DNA testing), who could then link it to (I believe) a Dutch buyer who was sourcing the "meat" from Eastern Europe; lads involved were caught & convicted. Obviously, shouldn't have happened in the first place, but the responsible guys were caught, via the EU systems So the food chain was successfully contaminated affecting multiple major retailers and this was a success for food standards? Do you think the US doesn't have any such checks ? The idea that EU food standards are notably superior to the US is just not born out by comparisons of bacterial infections such as salmonella or listeria, both of which are more common in EU. The ban on beef growth hormones is really just a protectionist measure with little scientific fact behind it, same as GM crops. Yes, the USA has checks..But Google the allowable amount of rat droppings the FDA allow in their food. Well how would you describe it? The system was compromised via corruption, bribery; the MSs responded, removed the affected product & informed their populations & brought the guys to justice. Can you show a similar example from the USA? Where is the your data showing EU listeria & salmonella are higher in The EU vs The USA? Please post it. Animal welfare is much better in EU/UK, which reduces significantly salmonella contamination. I know comparisons are different but seen studies showing 1 in 6 USA citizens suffer food poisoning one a year vs. 1 in 30 in UK/EU Re growth hormone; I've already posted a link showing studies since the 1980s showing growth hormones linked to higher incidences of cancer & other diseases in lab conditions. You posted a link from the EU itself on growth hormones, not an independent source. The figures on salmonella and listeria are freely available with a simple Google search. Animal welfare standards are appalling in the EU, especially Southern Europe. " ....scource? | |||
"Is the EU still selling horsemeat as beef ? Actually, that is a perfect example of EU quality system of farm-to-fork. Lads tried (& succeed) to sell horsemeat as beef; was detected by Irish vets (via DNA testing), who could then link it to (I believe) a Dutch buyer who was sourcing the "meat" from Eastern Europe; lads involved were caught & convicted. Obviously, shouldn't have happened in the first place, but the responsible guys were caught, via the EU systems So the food chain was successfully contaminated affecting multiple major retailers and this was a success for food standards? Do you think the US doesn't have any such checks ? The idea that EU food standards are notably superior to the US is just not born out by comparisons of bacterial infections such as salmonella or listeria, both of which are more common in EU. The ban on beef growth hormones is really just a protectionist measure with little scientific fact behind it, same as GM crops. Yes, the USA has checks..But Google the allowable amount of rat droppings the FDA allow in their food. Well how would you describe it? The system was compromised via corruption, bribery; the MSs responded, removed the affected product & informed their populations & brought the guys to justice. Can you show a similar example from the USA? Where is the your data showing EU listeria & salmonella are higher in The EU vs The USA? Please post it. Animal welfare is much better in EU/UK, which reduces significantly salmonella contamination. I know comparisons are different but seen studies showing 1 in 6 USA citizens suffer food poisoning one a year vs. 1 in 30 in UK/EU Re growth hormone; I've already posted a link showing studies since the 1980s showing growth hormones linked to higher incidences of cancer & other diseases in lab conditions. You posted a link from the EU itself on growth hormones, not an independent source. The figures on salmonella and listeria are freely available with a simple Google search. Animal welfare standards are appalling in the EU, especially Southern Europe. " https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1115840/ "The independent scientists who carried out the research, whose results have been passed to the United States and Canada, concluded that there was substantial evidence to consider the natural hormone 17{¬zrI=¬}-oestradiol as a complete carcinogen which could cause tumours" Grand so; you can provide the study showing this re salmonella rates | |||
"Is the EU still selling horsemeat as beef ? Actually, that is a perfect example of EU quality system of farm-to-fork. Lads tried (& succeed) to sell horsemeat as beef; was detected by Irish vets (via DNA testing), who could then link it to (I believe) a Dutch buyer who was sourcing the "meat" from Eastern Europe; lads involved were caught & convicted. Obviously, shouldn't have happened in the first place, but the responsible guys were caught, via the EU systems So the food chain was successfully contaminated affecting multiple major retailers and this was a success for food standards? Do you think the US doesn't have any such checks ? The idea that EU food standards are notably superior to the US is just not born out by comparisons of bacterial infections such as salmonella or listeria, both of which are more common in EU. The ban on beef growth hormones is really just a protectionist measure with little scientific fact behind it, same as GM crops. Yes, the USA has checks..But Google the allowable amount of rat droppings the FDA allow in their food. Well how would you describe it? The system was compromised via corruption, bribery; the MSs responded, removed the affected product & informed their populations & brought the guys to justice. Can you show a similar example from the USA? Where is the your data showing EU listeria & salmonella are higher in The EU vs The USA? Please post it. Animal welfare is much better in EU/UK, which reduces significantly salmonella contamination. I know comparisons are different but seen studies showing 1 in 6 USA citizens suffer food poisoning one a year vs. 1 in 30 in UK/EU Re growth hormone; I've already posted a link showing studies since the 1980s showing growth hormones linked to higher incidences of cancer & other diseases in lab conditions. You posted a link from the EU itself on growth hormones, not an independent source. The figures on salmonella and listeria are freely available with a simple Google search. Animal welfare standards are appalling in the EU, especially Southern Europe. ....scource?" https://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/2011-foodborne-estimates.html "CDC estimates that each year roughly 1 in 6 Americans (or 48 million people) gets sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases." | |||
 | |||
"World Health Authority Report: 'Every minute, 44 people – more than 23 million per year – fall sick from eating contaminated food, and an estimated 4700 per year lose their lives. This is according to a review of the most recent available data entitled “The burden of foodborne diseases in the WHO European Region”, and it represents only the tip of the iceberg: the true number of cases is unknown.' "Are you not proving my point?! USA: 48 million ill or 14% of USA population (335 million) EU: 23 million ill or 5% of EU population (449 million) | |||
"World Health Authority Report: 'Every minute, 44 people – more than 23 million per year – fall sick from eating contaminated food, and an estimated 4700 per year lose their lives. This is according to a review of the most recent available data entitled “The burden of foodborne diseases in the WHO European Region”, and it represents only the tip of the iceberg: the true number of cases is unknown.' "...congratulations...you successfully copied and pasted the first paragraph of a report published in 2019...(the emoji is your own contribution) | |||
| |||
"World Health Authority Report: 'Every minute, 44 people – more than 23 million per year – fall sick from eating contaminated food, and an estimated 4700 per year lose their lives. This is according to a review of the most recent available data entitled “The burden of foodborne diseases in the WHO European Region”, and it represents only the tip of the iceberg: the true number of cases is unknown.'" "Are you not proving my point?! USA: 48 million ill or 14% of USA population (335 million) EU: 23 million ill or 5% of EU population (449 million)" USA: 3000 deaths, or 8.96 per million EU: 4700 deaths, or 10.47 per million Either European pathogens are more deadly than the US versions, or the US data is over-reporting cases due to the way their medical system works. | |||
"World Health Authority Report: 'Every minute, 44 people – more than 23 million per year – fall sick from eating contaminated food, and an estimated 4700 per year lose their lives. This is according to a review of the most recent available data entitled “The burden of foodborne diseases in the WHO European Region”, and it represents only the tip of the iceberg: the true number of cases is unknown.' Are you not proving my point?! USA: 48 million ill or 14% of USA population (335 million) EU: 23 million ill or 5% of EU population (449 million) USA: 3000 deaths, or 8.96 per million EU: 4700 deaths, or 10.47 per million Either European pathogens are more deadly than the US versions, or the US data is over-reporting cases due to the way their medical system works." The truth is there are so many variables in those stats (reporting methods, medical care, climate, etc) I wouldn't put too much weight on them, but as you show they are broadly comparable. Both the EU and USA have high food standards compared to most of the world and neither has anything to fear from the other. The widespread claim that the US standards are much lower is simply a protectionist myth with no solid science behind it. | |||
"World Health Authority Report: 'Every minute, 44 people – more than 23 million per year – fall sick from eating contaminated food, and an estimated 4700 per year lose their lives. This is according to a review of the most recent available data entitled “The burden of foodborne diseases in the WHO European Region”, and it represents only the tip of the iceberg: the true number of cases is unknown.' Are you not proving my point?! USA: 48 million ill or 14% of USA population (335 million) EU: 23 million ill or 5% of EU population (449 million) USA: 3000 deaths, or 8.96 per million EU: 4700 deaths, or 10.47 per million Either European pathogens are more deadly than the US versions, or the US data is over-reporting cases due to the way their medical system works." Sorry, I missed that as my main focus was on food illness (I'm just up!). Yeah, different medical systems, but I find the similar death number vs. the very different illness number difficult to find the logic TBH. | |||
"World Health Authority Report: 'Every minute, 44 people – more than 23 million per year – fall sick from eating contaminated food, and an estimated 4700 per year lose their lives. This is according to a review of the most recent available data entitled “The burden of foodborne diseases in the WHO European Region”, and it represents only the tip of the iceberg: the true number of cases is unknown.' Are you not proving my point?! USA: 48 million ill or 14% of USA population (335 million) EU: 23 million ill or 5% of EU population (449 million) USA: 3000 deaths, or 8.96 per million EU: 4700 deaths, or 10.47 per million Either European pathogens are more deadly than the US versions, or the US data is over-reporting cases due to the way their medical system works. The truth is there are so many variables in those stats (reporting methods, medical care, climate, etc) I wouldn't put too much weight on them, but as you show they are broadly comparable. Both the EU and USA have high food standards compared to most of the world and neither has anything to fear from the other. The widespread claim that the US standards are much lower is simply a protectionist myth with no solid science behind it." We can argue about who is right/wrong/indifferent on this. The point is if The UK signs a deal with The US that involves food, The EU will impose more barriers, red tape to trade from The UK to avoid US standard agricultural produce in their MSs. EU customers want high quality food, that matches at least EU level; they don't want US standard product, as they view it (rightly or wrongly) low quality & as having a possible threat to their own agricultural system. | |||
"World Health Authority Report: 'Every minute, 44 people – more than 23 million per year – fall sick from eating contaminated food, and an estimated 4700 per year lose their lives. This is according to a review of the most recent available data entitled “The burden of foodborne diseases in the WHO European Region”, and it represents only the tip of the iceberg: the true number of cases is unknown.' Are you not proving my point?! USA: 48 million ill or 14% of USA population (335 million) EU: 23 million ill or 5% of EU population (449 million) USA: 3000 deaths, or 8.96 per million EU: 4700 deaths, or 10.47 per million Either European pathogens are more deadly than the US versions, or the US data is over-reporting cases due to the way their medical system works. The truth is there are so many variables in those stats (reporting methods, medical care, climate, etc) I wouldn't put too much weight on them, but as you show they are broadly comparable. Both the EU and USA have high food standards compared to most of the world and neither has anything to fear from the other. The widespread claim that the US standards are much lower is simply a protectionist myth with no solid science behind it." ...so you're backing away from your 2019 report then...? | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. If our existing obligations to, in this instance, good safety standards, then we can't do the deals the Americans want. You are not considering the UK as a supplier who has multiple options, to service multiple customers. Not sure why the EU would by goods from us, or why the British population, British farmers, British producers would want to lower our food safety standards for the benefit of the American food produce industry. " I don't understand why you and others are being drawn into food standards, they will not change in the UK and will need to be either ironed out or we remove trade in specific items from the deal. We have made several agreements with countries that follow this route, such as Canada. It would also be beneficial to look into our already existing trade with the US, which as a single country entity is our biggest trade partner, followed by Germany, Netherlands, France and China. | |||
 | |||
"I find the similar death number vs. the very different illness number difficult to find the logic TBH." The vast majority of Americans have health insurance, and they know it comes at great expense. This makes them keen on using that insurance as often as possible. An American that has a cold will rush to the doctor to get reassurance that it's nothing more serious, and the doctor will prescribe them all sorts of pills to make them feel better. The higher number of food poisoning incidents in the US is just a result of their willingness to get treatment. Here in Europe we'd just stay at home and wait for it to pass. | |||
"I find the similar death number vs. the very different illness number difficult to find the logic TBH. The vast majority of Americans have health insurance, and they know it comes at great expense. This makes them keen on using that insurance as often as possible. An American that has a cold will rush to the doctor to get reassurance that it's nothing more serious, and the doctor will prescribe them all sorts of pills to make them feel better. The higher number of food poisoning incidents in the US is just a result of their willingness to get treatment. Here in Europe we'd just stay at home and wait for it to pass." That sounds very credible. Also Americans are more litigious so more likely to seek financial redress for minor stomach upset. | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. If our existing obligations to, in this instance, good safety standards, then we can't do the deals the Americans want. You are not considering the UK as a supplier who has multiple options, to service multiple customers. Not sure why the EU would by goods from us, or why the British population, British farmers, British producers would want to lower our food safety standards for the benefit of the American food produce industry. I don't understand why you and others are being drawn into food standards, they will not change in the UK and will need to be either ironed out or we remove trade in specific items from the deal. We have made several agreements with countries that follow this route, such as Canada. It would also be beneficial to look into our already existing trade with the US, which as a single country entity is our biggest trade partner, followed by Germany, Netherlands, France and China. " You need to read up about the UK/Canada deal; Canadian farmers are demanding that for the review, hormone treated beef be on the table. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68098177 The USA has told the UK previously that access for US food is a must. | |||
"I find the similar death number vs. the very different illness number difficult to find the logic TBH. The vast majority of Americans have health insurance, and they know it comes at great expense. This makes them keen on using that insurance as often as possible. An American that has a cold will rush to the doctor to get reassurance that it's nothing more serious, and the doctor will prescribe them all sorts of pills to make them feel better. The higher number of food poisoning incidents in the US is just a result of their willingness to get treatment. Here in Europe we'd just stay at home and wait for it to pass." Great points; thanks for sharing! | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. If our existing obligations to, in this instance, good safety standards, then we can't do the deals the Americans want. You are not considering the UK as a supplier who has multiple options, to service multiple customers. Not sure why the EU would by goods from us, or why the British population, British farmers, British producers would want to lower our food safety standards for the benefit of the American food produce industry. I don't understand why you and others are being drawn into food standards, they will not change in the UK and will need to be either ironed out or we remove trade in specific items from the deal. We have made several agreements with countries that follow this route, such as Canada. It would also be beneficial to look into our already existing trade with the US, which as a single country entity is our biggest trade partner, followed by Germany, Netherlands, France and China. You need to read up about the UK/Canada deal; Canadian farmers are demanding that for the review, hormone treated beef be on the table. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68098177 The USA has told the UK previously that access for US food is a must." I understand the Canadian trade deal we have and it does not contain food stuffs that do not meet our UK standards, it was taken off the table. They have imposed tariffs that make certain produce from the UK to expensive as they protect their own market, such is the deal. The outcome meets our standards without compromise. | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. If our existing obligations to, in this instance, good safety standards, then we can't do the deals the Americans want. You are not considering the UK as a supplier who has multiple options, to service multiple customers. Not sure why the EU would by goods from us, or why the British population, British farmers, British producers would want to lower our food safety standards for the benefit of the American food produce industry. I don't understand why you and others are being drawn into food standards, they will not change in the UK and will need to be either ironed out or we remove trade in specific items from the deal. We have made several agreements with countries that follow this route, such as Canada. It would also be beneficial to look into our already existing trade with the US, which as a single country entity is our biggest trade partner, followed by Germany, Netherlands, France and China. You need to read up about the UK/Canada deal; Canadian farmers are demanding that for the review, hormone treated beef be on the table. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68098177 The USA has told the UK previously that access for US food is a must. I understand the Canadian trade deal we have and it does not contain food stuffs that do not meet our UK standards, it was taken off the table. They have imposed tariffs that make certain produce from the UK to expensive as they protect their own market, such is the deal. The outcome meets our standards without compromise. " That's with the current deal, which will be renegotiated & where Canada has demanded that hormone treated beef be abled into The UK; any possible US deal means US standard food is on the table; if the UK has signed up to those standards, then the red tape with The EU will increase, as The EU will not trust that US agricultural produce is not in a UK food product being exported to The EU. The UK can only ride the 2 horses of The EU & The US for so long; if it goes with one, it will compromise the other. To claim it can continue to do both into the future is wishful thinking. (It is maybe possible but will be a nightmare in terms of regulation, production lines, costs, health to the consumer) | |||
| |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. If our existing obligations to, in this instance, good safety standards, then we can't do the deals the Americans want. You are not considering the UK as a supplier who has multiple options, to service multiple customers. Not sure why the EU would by goods from us, or why the British population, British farmers, British producers would want to lower our food safety standards for the benefit of the American food produce industry. I don't understand why you and others are being drawn into food standards, they will not change in the UK and will need to be either ironed out or we remove trade in specific items from the deal. We have made several agreements with countries that follow this route, such as Canada. It would also be beneficial to look into our already existing trade with the US, which as a single country entity is our biggest trade partner, followed by Germany, Netherlands, France and China. You need to read up about the UK/Canada deal; Canadian farmers are demanding that for the review, hormone treated beef be on the table. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68098177 The USA has told the UK previously that access for US food is a must. I understand the Canadian trade deal we have and it does not contain food stuffs that do not meet our UK standards, it was taken off the table. They have imposed tariffs that make certain produce from the UK to expensive as they protect their own market, such is the deal. The outcome meets our standards without compromise. That's with the current deal, which will be renegotiated & where Canada has demanded that hormone treated beef be abled into The UK; any possible US deal means US standard food is on the table; if the UK has signed up to those standards, then the red tape with The EU will increase, as The EU will not trust that US agricultural produce is not in a UK food product being exported to The EU. The UK can only ride the 2 horses of The EU & The US for so long; if it goes with one, it will compromise the other. To claim it can continue to do both into the future is wishful thinking. (It is maybe possible but will be a nightmare in terms of regulation, production lines, costs, health to the consumer)" I understand where you are coming from now. You are talking about a FTA with the US? I agree that is not going to happen mainly for the reasons you have set out. We won't get a FTA with the EU either, so I see nothing really changing. | |||
"That's with the current deal, which will be renegotiated & where Canada has demanded that hormone treated beef be abled into The UK" You mean 'some Canadian farmers are demanding that their beef be allowed into the UK'. You've got no evidence that their government is listening. And which do you think is more likely: a) the Labour government accepts lower meat standards, angers the animal rights people, and takes the hit of distancing itself from the EU, just to be able to announce that they got a trade deal the Tories couldn't manage? or b) the Labour government talks up its ties with the EU, as well as our vital animal welfare standards, and denies the US a trade deal so they can look like principled heroes? | |||
"That's with the current deal, which will be renegotiated & where Canada has demanded that hormone treated beef be abled into The UK You mean 'some Canadian farmers are demanding that their beef be allowed into the UK'. You've got no evidence that their government is listening. And which do you think is more likely: a) the Labour government accepts lower meat standards, angers the animal rights people, and takes the hit of distancing itself from the EU, just to be able to announce that they got a trade deal the Tories couldn't manage? or b) the Labour government talks up its ties with the EU, as well as our vital animal welfare standards, and denies the US a trade deal so they can look like principled heroes?" Not some Canadian farmers, from the Canadian trade minister, which is the Canadian government; A spokeswoman for Canada's trade minister Mary Ng said she was "disappointed" at the pause in talks, and had communicated this to UK Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch. ""Their decision to continue to maintain market access barriers for our agriculture industry and unwillingness to reach a mutual agreement has only stalled negotiations," the spokeswoman added." Honestly; I think there will be no progress; it'll be another Brexit logjam. IMO SM & CU were deemed OK to Brexiteers before the referendum, so should be considered... but the UK political system won't face up to the impact of Brexit | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. If our existing obligations to, in this instance, good safety standards, then we can't do the deals the Americans want. You are not considering the UK as a supplier who has multiple options, to service multiple customers. Not sure why the EU would by goods from us, or why the British population, British farmers, British producers would want to lower our food safety standards for the benefit of the American food produce industry. I don't understand why you and others are being drawn into food standards, they will not change in the UK and will need to be either ironed out or we remove trade in specific items from the deal. We have made several agreements with countries that follow this route, such as Canada. It would also be beneficial to look into our already existing trade with the US, which as a single country entity is our biggest trade partner, followed by Germany, Netherlands, France and China. You need to read up about the UK/Canada deal; Canadian farmers are demanding that for the review, hormone treated beef be on the table. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68098177 The USA has told the UK previously that access for US food is a must. I understand the Canadian trade deal we have and it does not contain food stuffs that do not meet our UK standards, it was taken off the table. They have imposed tariffs that make certain produce from the UK to expensive as they protect their own market, such is the deal. The outcome meets our standards without compromise. That's with the current deal, which will be renegotiated & where Canada has demanded that hormone treated beef be abled into The UK; any possible US deal means US standard food is on the table; if the UK has signed up to those standards, then the red tape with The EU will increase, as The EU will not trust that US agricultural produce is not in a UK food product being exported to The EU. The UK can only ride the 2 horses of The EU & The US for so long; if it goes with one, it will compromise the other. To claim it can continue to do both into the future is wishful thinking. (It is maybe possible but will be a nightmare in terms of regulation, production lines, costs, health to the consumer) I understand where you are coming from now. You are talking about a FTA with the US? I agree that is not going to happen mainly for the reasons you have set out. We won't get a FTA with the EU either, so I see nothing really changing." OK, glad we are on the same page. The UK has a FTA with the EU, was Johnson's, Frost's oven ready deal | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. If our existing obligations to, in this instance, good safety standards, then we can't do the deals the Americans want. You are not considering the UK as a supplier who has multiple options, to service multiple customers. Not sure why the EU would by goods from us, or why the British population, British farmers, British producers would want to lower our food safety standards for the benefit of the American food produce industry. I don't understand why you and others are being drawn into food standards, they will not change in the UK and will need to be either ironed out or we remove trade in specific items from the deal. We have made several agreements with countries that follow this route, such as Canada. It would also be beneficial to look into our already existing trade with the US, which as a single country entity is our biggest trade partner, followed by Germany, Netherlands, France and China. You need to read up about the UK/Canada deal; Canadian farmers are demanding that for the review, hormone treated beef be on the table. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68098177 The USA has told the UK previously that access for US food is a must. I understand the Canadian trade deal we have and it does not contain food stuffs that do not meet our UK standards, it was taken off the table. They have imposed tariffs that make certain produce from the UK to expensive as they protect their own market, such is the deal. The outcome meets our standards without compromise. That's with the current deal, which will be renegotiated & where Canada has demanded that hormone treated beef be abled into The UK; any possible US deal means US standard food is on the table; if the UK has signed up to those standards, then the red tape with The EU will increase, as The EU will not trust that US agricultural produce is not in a UK food product being exported to The EU. The UK can only ride the 2 horses of The EU & The US for so long; if it goes with one, it will compromise the other. To claim it can continue to do both into the future is wishful thinking. (It is maybe possible but will be a nightmare in terms of regulation, production lines, costs, health to the consumer) I understand where you are coming from now. You are talking about a FTA with the US? I agree that is not going to happen mainly for the reasons you have set out. We won't get a FTA with the EU either, so I see nothing really changing. OK, glad we are on the same page. The UK has a FTA with the EU, was Johnson's, Frost's oven ready deal" That is the problem with Brexit we don't have a FTA, we have TCA. We have tariff and quota free trade, but now have customs and regulatory obligations. We also have MoUs with individual states in the US. | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. If our existing obligations to, in this instance, good safety standards, then we can't do the deals the Americans want. You are not considering the UK as a supplier who has multiple options, to service multiple customers. Not sure why the EU would by goods from us, or why the British population, British farmers, British producers would want to lower our food safety standards for the benefit of the American food produce industry. I don't understand why you and others are being drawn into food standards, they will not change in the UK and will need to be either ironed out or we remove trade in specific items from the deal. We have made several agreements with countries that follow this route, such as Canada. It would also be beneficial to look into our already existing trade with the US, which as a single country entity is our biggest trade partner, followed by Germany, Netherlands, France and China. You need to read up about the UK/Canada deal; Canadian farmers are demanding that for the review, hormone treated beef be on the table. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68098177 The USA has told the UK previously that access for US food is a must. I understand the Canadian trade deal we have and it does not contain food stuffs that do not meet our UK standards, it was taken off the table. They have imposed tariffs that make certain produce from the UK to expensive as they protect their own market, such is the deal. The outcome meets our standards without compromise. That's with the current deal, which will be renegotiated & where Canada has demanded that hormone treated beef be abled into The UK; any possible US deal means US standard food is on the table; if the UK has signed up to those standards, then the red tape with The EU will increase, as The EU will not trust that US agricultural produce is not in a UK food product being exported to The EU. The UK can only ride the 2 horses of The EU & The US for so long; if it goes with one, it will compromise the other. To claim it can continue to do both into the future is wishful thinking. (It is maybe possible but will be a nightmare in terms of regulation, production lines, costs, health to the consumer) I understand where you are coming from now. You are talking about a FTA with the US? I agree that is not going to happen mainly for the reasons you have set out. We won't get a FTA with the EU either, so I see nothing really changing. OK, glad we are on the same page. The UK has a FTA with the EU, was Johnson's, Frost's oven ready deal That is the problem with Brexit we don't have a FTA, we have TCA. We have tariff and quota free trade, but now have customs and regulatory obligations. We also have MoUs with individual states in the US. " If the UK signed up to EU SPS agreements, the barriers re customs would reduce; sign up to SM rules, regulatory would reduce. MoUs have, to the best of my knowledge, have no impact on trade & are non-binding. Several EU countries have them also; I believe Ireland, Germany, France have several with US states so not really anything due to Brexit | |||
"There are food safety concerns from US and EU. US = growth hormones, chemical rinsing, dna modifications EU = hepatitis E, salmonella, EHD, animal welfare. Maybe the government should be promoting UK farmers instead of kicking them in the teeth?" If you don’t think the US has salmonella outbreaks, you will need to look into the incident that nearly took down olive garden a few years ago….. Even in the last 2 weeks there has been a serious food safety incident E. coli at McDonald’s in the western half of the US linked back to the ingredients they used | |||
| |||
| |||
"There are food safety concerns from US and EU. US = growth hormones, chemical rinsing, dna modifications EU = hepatitis E, salmonella, EHD, animal welfare. Maybe the government should be promoting UK farmers instead of kicking them in the teeth? If you don’t think the US has salmonella outbreaks, you will need to look into the incident that nearly took down olive garden a few years ago….. Even in the last 2 weeks there has been a serious food safety incident E. coli at McDonald’s in the western half of the US linked back to the ingredients they used " isn’t this why the dems lost scaremongering just doesn’t work ppl will choose to eat food from the USA or they won’t it’s called choice | |||
| |||
"There are food safety concerns from US and EU. US = growth hormones, chemical rinsing, dna modifications EU = hepatitis E, salmonella, EHD, animal welfare. Maybe the government should be promoting UK farmers instead of kicking them in the teeth? If you don’t think the US has salmonella outbreaks, you will need to look into the incident that nearly took down olive garden a few years ago….. Even in the last 2 weeks there has been a serious food safety incident E. coli at McDonald’s in the western half of the US linked back to the ingredients they used isn’t this why the dems lost scaremongering just doesn’t work ppl will choose to eat food from the USA or they won’t it’s called choice " Huh.. where do you make that leap.. Over 100 people have been affected and 2 people have died in this E. coli outbreak | |||
"Anyway for as big as the us economy may be… it’s a simple factor that we do a lot more business with the EU nations than we do with the United States… It’s like when brexiteers were doing victory laps when they signed deals with African countries not realising that you could add all the business with African countries together, and it would still be less than we do with France alone…. I have kept out of this discussion…. But you can certainly work out who took economics at school, and who didn’t " Haven't seen any poverty with Brexit have you? Everyone is still living an affluent lifestyle, there's a rush to buy up homes that come on the market, majority of people are driving brand new cars so where is all this doom and gloom that was supposed to happen with Brexit? Life goes on and most are doing very well | |||
| |||
"Anyway for as big as the us economy may be… it’s a simple factor that we do a lot more business with the EU nations than we do with the United States… It’s like when brexiteers were doing victory laps when they signed deals with African countries not realising that you could add all the business with African countries together, and it would still be less than we do with France alone…. I have kept out of this discussion…. But you can certainly work out who took economics at school, and who didn’t Haven't seen any poverty with Brexit have you? Everyone is still living an affluent lifestyle, there's a rush to buy up homes that come on the market, majority of people are driving brand new cars so where is all this doom and gloom that was supposed to happen with Brexit? Life goes on and most are doing very well " Im involved with a national charity which is increasingly struggling with the ever increasing demand for help do I beg to differ on the poverty and related health comment. Aston university are claiming a 30% drop in trade with the EU since Brexit. Not read the report so not claiming it’s correct but it would be a big margin of error to assume just 10% I wonder where our growth figures would be without Brexit. Certainly more than the 0.1% just announced. Not losing your job is not being better off. It’s being less worse than those who do. Footnote - a lot of new builds are being snapped up by Hong Kong Chinese which helps the demand figures. Yes they are coming so watch Farage lose his mind with that one. 
Already 10% of uk buy to lets are owned by Hong Kong residents according to the Skipton building society. | |||
"Already 10% of uk buy to lets are owned by Hong Kong residents according to the Skipton building society. " this figure is far higher in university towns and cities | |||
"Anyway for as big as the us economy may be… it’s a simple factor that we do a lot more business with the EU nations than we do with the United States… It’s like when brexiteers were doing victory laps when they signed deals with African countries not realising that you could add all the business with African countries together, and it would still be less than we do with France alone…. I have kept out of this discussion…. But you can certainly work out who took economics at school, and who didn’t Haven't seen any poverty with Brexit have you? Everyone is still living an affluent lifestyle, there's a rush to buy up homes that come on the market, majority of people are driving brand new cars so where is all this doom and gloom that was supposed to happen with Brexit? Life goes on and most are doing very well Im involved with a national charity which is increasingly struggling with the ever increasing demand for help do I beg to differ on the poverty and related health comment. Aston university are claiming a 30% drop in trade with the EU since Brexit. Not read the report so not claiming it’s correct but it would be a big margin of error to assume just 10% I wonder where our growth figures would be without Brexit. Certainly more than the 0.1% just announced. Not losing your job is not being better off. It’s being less worse than those who do. Footnote - a lot of new builds are being snapped up by Hong Kong Chinese which helps the demand figures. Yes they are coming so watch Farage lose his mind with that one.
Already 10% of uk buy to lets are owned by Hong Kong residents according to the Skipton building society. "I kinda agree with you for Manchester We were down there for the Chris Stapleton concert and we could not believe the amount of poverty and immigrants Maybe you should move upto Scotland if you're white, it's far better for living standards | |||
"Anyway for as big as the us economy may be… it’s a simple factor that we do a lot more business with the EU nations than we do with the United States… It’s like when brexiteers were doing victory laps when they signed deals with African countries not realising that you could add all the business with African countries together, and it would still be less than we do with France alone…. I have kept out of this discussion…. But you can certainly work out who took economics at school, and who didn’t Haven't seen any poverty with Brexit have you? Everyone is still living an affluent lifestyle, there's a rush to buy up homes that come on the market, majority of people are driving brand new cars so where is all this doom and gloom that was supposed to happen with Brexit? Life goes on and most are doing very well Im involved with a national charity which is increasingly struggling with the ever increasing demand for help do I beg to differ on the poverty and related health comment. Aston university are claiming a 30% drop in trade with the EU since Brexit. Not read the report so not claiming it’s correct but it would be a big margin of error to assume just 10% I wonder where our growth figures would be without Brexit. Certainly more than the 0.1% just announced. Not losing your job is not being better off. It’s being less worse than those who do. Footnote - a lot of new builds are being snapped up by Hong Kong Chinese which helps the demand figures. Yes they are coming so watch Farage lose his mind with that one.
Already 10% of uk buy to lets are owned by Hong Kong residents according to the Skipton building society.
I kinda agree with you for Manchester
We were down there for the Chris Stapleton concert and we could not believe the amount of poverty and immigrants
Maybe you should move upto Scotland if you're white, it's far better for living standards "Successful cities attack the poor as there’s more chance of charity. Manchester is booming and if you visited you would see the plethora of tower cranes building for the younger upwardly mobile workers who are attracted to such a vibrant city. It’s not my home town, I don’t live in the city and even I can see it’s doing well. You white comment I’ll leave you to consider. You really need to have a word with yourself. | |||
"There are food safety concerns from US and EU. US = growth hormones, chemical rinsing, dna modifications EU = hepatitis E, salmonella, EHD, animal welfare. Maybe the government should be promoting UK farmers instead of kicking them in the teeth? If you don’t think the US has salmonella outbreaks, you will need to look into the incident that nearly took down olive garden a few years ago….. Even in the last 2 weeks there has been a serious food safety incident E. coli at McDonald’s in the western half of the US linked back to the ingredients they used isn’t this why the dems lost scaremongering just doesn’t work ppl will choose to eat food from the USA or they won’t it’s called choice Huh.. where do you make that leap.. Over 100 people have been affected and 2 people have died in this E. coli outbreak " I believe you _abio I’m just saying ppl will make tbere own choices regarding eating American food in the U.K. | |||
"There are food safety concerns from US and EU. US = growth hormones, chemical rinsing, dna modifications EU = hepatitis E, salmonella, EHD, animal welfare. Maybe the government should be promoting UK farmers instead of kicking them in the teeth? If you don’t think the US has salmonella outbreaks, you will need to look into the incident that nearly took down olive garden a few years ago….. Even in the last 2 weeks there has been a serious food safety incident E. coli at McDonald’s in the western half of the US linked back to the ingredients they used isn’t this why the dems lost scaremongering just doesn’t work ppl will choose to eat food from the USA or they won’t it’s called choice Huh.. where do you make that leap.. Over 100 people have been affected and 2 people have died in this E. coli outbreak I believe you _abio I’m just saying ppl will make tbere own choices regarding eating American food in the U.K. " I hope you’re right Foxy but last time the negotiation team on the US side raised that they wanted the country of origin removed from certain ranges of food. That is a worry. Why would that be an issue for them? No I can’t give you the quote as I can’t remember the source but I can confirm it was a genuine comment at the time, | |||
"There are food safety concerns from US and EU. US = growth hormones, chemical rinsing, dna modifications EU = hepatitis E, salmonella, EHD, animal welfare. Maybe the government should be promoting UK farmers instead of kicking them in the teeth? If you don’t think the US has salmonella outbreaks, you will need to look into the incident that nearly took down olive garden a few years ago….. Even in the last 2 weeks there has been a serious food safety incident E. coli at McDonald’s in the western half of the US linked back to the ingredients they used isn’t this why the dems lost scaremongering just doesn’t work ppl will choose to eat food from the USA or they won’t it’s called choice Huh.. where do you make that leap.. Over 100 people have been affected and 2 people have died in this E. coli outbreak I believe you _abio I’m just saying ppl will make tbere own choices regarding eating American food in the U.K. " The point isn't about the choice of American food; it is about US standard agricultural produce in the UK food supply chain; I point again to my example of a UK meat pie for export to the EU; how can you prove that not 1 gram of US agricultural produce is in the meat pie? It's about the ingredients, not about the final product; that means more red tape to countries who don't want US standard agricultural produce in the food they eat; same case for industrial products re origin. Also; customers will choose the cheapest option; meaning traditional UK farming model will become (more) unprofitable, meaning a race to the bottom in terms of standards & small farmers holders going out of business. | |||
"There are food safety concerns from US and EU. US = growth hormones, chemical rinsing, dna modifications EU = hepatitis E, salmonella, EHD, animal welfare. Maybe the government should be promoting UK farmers instead of kicking them in the teeth? If you don’t think the US has salmonella outbreaks, you will need to look into the incident that nearly took down olive garden a few years ago….. Even in the last 2 weeks there has been a serious food safety incident E. coli at McDonald’s in the western half of the US linked back to the ingredients they used isn’t this why the dems lost scaremongering just doesn’t work ppl will choose to eat food from the USA or they won’t it’s called choice Huh.. where do you make that leap.. Over 100 people have been affected and 2 people have died in this E. coli outbreak I believe you _abio I’m just saying ppl will make tbere own choices regarding eating American food in the U.K. I hope you’re right Foxy but last time the negotiation team on the US side raised that they wanted the country of origin removed from certain ranges of food. That is a worry. Why would that be an issue for them? No I can’t give you the quote as I can’t remember the source but I can confirm it was a genuine comment at the time, " but that’s the point of negotiations tho one side asks for this the other for that it’s upto the U.K. side to get the best for us time will tell on this | |||
"There are food safety concerns from US and EU. US = growth hormones, chemical rinsing, dna modifications EU = hepatitis E, salmonella, EHD, animal welfare. Maybe the government should be promoting UK farmers instead of kicking them in the teeth? If you don’t think the US has salmonella outbreaks, you will need to look into the incident that nearly took down olive garden a few years ago….. Even in the last 2 weeks there has been a serious food safety incident E. coli at McDonald’s in the western half of the US linked back to the ingredients they used isn’t this why the dems lost scaremongering just doesn’t work ppl will choose to eat food from the USA or they won’t it’s called choice Huh.. where do you make that leap.. Over 100 people have been affected and 2 people have died in this E. coli outbreak I believe you _abio I’m just saying ppl will make tbere own choices regarding eating American food in the U.K. I hope you’re right Foxy but last time the negotiation team on the US side raised that they wanted the country of origin removed from certain ranges of food. That is a worry. Why would that be an issue for them? No I can’t give you the quote as I can’t remember the source but I can confirm it was a genuine comment at the time, but that’s the point of negotiations tho one side asks for this the other for that it’s upto the U.K. side to get the best for us time will tell on this " Do you think any government we’ve had in the last 25years would be strong enough? I sadly doubt it. That’s not a comment on our society wanting wants best that’s a comment on our terrible political class. Time will indeed tell I agree. | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. If our existing obligations to, in this instance, good safety standards, then we can't do the deals the Americans want. You are not considering the UK as a supplier who has multiple options, to service multiple customers. Not sure why the EU would by goods from us, or why the British population, British farmers, British producers would want to lower our food safety standards for the benefit of the American food produce industry. I don't understand why you and others are being drawn into food standards, they will not change in the UK and will need to be either ironed out or we remove trade in specific items from the deal. We have made several agreements with countries that follow this route, such as Canada. It would also be beneficial to look into our already existing trade with the US, which as a single country entity is our biggest trade partner, followed by Germany, Netherlands, France and China. You need to read up about the UK/Canada deal; Canadian farmers are demanding that for the review, hormone treated beef be on the table. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68098177 The USA has told the UK previously that access for US food is a must. I understand the Canadian trade deal we have and it does not contain food stuffs that do not meet our UK standards, it was taken off the table. They have imposed tariffs that make certain produce from the UK to expensive as they protect their own market, such is the deal. The outcome meets our standards without compromise. That's with the current deal, which will be renegotiated & where Canada has demanded that hormone treated beef be abled into The UK; any possible US deal means US standard food is on the table; if the UK has signed up to those standards, then the red tape with The EU will increase, as The EU will not trust that US agricultural produce is not in a UK food product being exported to The EU. The UK can only ride the 2 horses of The EU & The US for so long; if it goes with one, it will compromise the other. To claim it can continue to do both into the future is wishful thinking. (It is maybe possible but will be a nightmare in terms of regulation, production lines, costs, health to the consumer) I understand where you are coming from now. You are talking about a FTA with the US? I agree that is not going to happen mainly for the reasons you have set out. We won't get a FTA with the EU either, so I see nothing really changing. OK, glad we are on the same page. The UK has a FTA with the EU, was Johnson's, Frost's oven ready deal That is the problem with Brexit we don't have a FTA, we have TCA. We have tariff and quota free trade, but now have customs and regulatory obligations. We also have MoUs with individual states in the US. " If the U.S. food is as bad as it sounds then best not entertain it at all on UK health grounds alone let alone any complications with the EU. That said we heard similar things when the deal was done with Australia and new Zealand but it has not caused any health or trade problems as far,as I know. A lot depends on the current government and what they feel is most beneficial should any trade deal be suggested. Without any deal, the U.S. is already by far the largest trade partner compared to any other country and bigger than several EU countries combined. | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. If our existing obligations to, in this instance, good safety standards, then we can't do the deals the Americans want. You are not considering the UK as a supplier who has multiple options, to service multiple customers. Not sure why the EU would by goods from us, or why the British population, British farmers, British producers would want to lower our food safety standards for the benefit of the American food produce industry. I don't understand why you and others are being drawn into food standards, they will not change in the UK and will need to be either ironed out or we remove trade in specific items from the deal. We have made several agreements with countries that follow this route, such as Canada. It would also be beneficial to look into our already existing trade with the US, which as a single country entity is our biggest trade partner, followed by Germany, Netherlands, France and China. You need to read up about the UK/Canada deal; Canadian farmers are demanding that for the review, hormone treated beef be on the table. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68098177 The USA has told the UK previously that access for US food is a must. I understand the Canadian trade deal we have and it does not contain food stuffs that do not meet our UK standards, it was taken off the table. They have imposed tariffs that make certain produce from the UK to expensive as they protect their own market, such is the deal. The outcome meets our standards without compromise. That's with the current deal, which will be renegotiated & where Canada has demanded that hormone treated beef be abled into The UK; any possible US deal means US standard food is on the table; if the UK has signed up to those standards, then the red tape with The EU will increase, as The EU will not trust that US agricultural produce is not in a UK food product being exported to The EU. The UK can only ride the 2 horses of The EU & The US for so long; if it goes with one, it will compromise the other. To claim it can continue to do both into the future is wishful thinking. (It is maybe possible but will be a nightmare in terms of regulation, production lines, costs, health to the consumer) I understand where you are coming from now. You are talking about a FTA with the US? I agree that is not going to happen mainly for the reasons you have set out. We won't get a FTA with the EU either, so I see nothing really changing. OK, glad we are on the same page. The UK has a FTA with the EU, was Johnson's, Frost's oven ready deal That is the problem with Brexit we don't have a FTA, we have TCA. We have tariff and quota free trade, but now have customs and regulatory obligations. We also have MoUs with individual states in the US. If the U.S. food is as bad as it sounds then best not entertain it at all on UK health grounds alone let alone any complications with the EU. That said we heard similar things when the deal was done with Australia and new Zealand but it has not caused any health or trade problems as far,as I know. A lot depends on the current government and what they feel is most beneficial should any trade deal be suggested. Without any deal, the U.S. is already by far the largest trade partner compared to any other country and bigger than several EU countries combined. " But the UK has more trade with the EU than it does with the US | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. If our existing obligations to, in this instance, good safety standards, then we can't do the deals the Americans want. You are not considering the UK as a supplier who has multiple options, to service multiple customers. Not sure why the EU would by goods from us, or why the British population, British farmers, British producers would want to lower our food safety standards for the benefit of the American food produce industry. I don't understand why you and others are being drawn into food standards, they will not change in the UK and will need to be either ironed out or we remove trade in specific items from the deal. We have made several agreements with countries that follow this route, such as Canada. It would also be beneficial to look into our already existing trade with the US, which as a single country entity is our biggest trade partner, followed by Germany, Netherlands, France and China. You need to read up about the UK/Canada deal; Canadian farmers are demanding that for the review, hormone treated beef be on the table. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68098177 The USA has told the UK previously that access for US food is a must. I understand the Canadian trade deal we have and it does not contain food stuffs that do not meet our UK standards, it was taken off the table. They have imposed tariffs that make certain produce from the UK to expensive as they protect their own market, such is the deal. The outcome meets our standards without compromise. That's with the current deal, which will be renegotiated & where Canada has demanded that hormone treated beef be abled into The UK; any possible US deal means US standard food is on the table; if the UK has signed up to those standards, then the red tape with The EU will increase, as The EU will not trust that US agricultural produce is not in a UK food product being exported to The EU. The UK can only ride the 2 horses of The EU & The US for so long; if it goes with one, it will compromise the other. To claim it can continue to do both into the future is wishful thinking. (It is maybe possible but will be a nightmare in terms of regulation, production lines, costs, health to the consumer) I understand where you are coming from now. You are talking about a FTA with the US? I agree that is not going to happen mainly for the reasons you have set out. We won't get a FTA with the EU either, so I see nothing really changing. OK, glad we are on the same page. The UK has a FTA with the EU, was Johnson's, Frost's oven ready deal That is the problem with Brexit we don't have a FTA, we have TCA. We have tariff and quota free trade, but now have customs and regulatory obligations. We also have MoUs with individual states in the US. If the U.S. food is as bad as it sounds then best not entertain it at all on UK health grounds alone let alone any complications with the EU. That said we heard similar things when the deal was done with Australia and new Zealand but it has not caused any health or trade problems as far,as I know. A lot depends on the current government and what they feel is most beneficial should any trade deal be suggested. Without any deal, the U.S. is already by far the largest trade partner compared to any other country and bigger than several EU countries combined. But the UK has more trade with the EU than it does with the US" The EU is not a country, it is 27 countries and I mentioned the U.S. is by far our biggest trade partner as a country. | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. If our existing obligations to, in this instance, good safety standards, then we can't do the deals the Americans want. You are not considering the UK as a supplier who has multiple options, to service multiple customers. Not sure why the EU would by goods from us, or why the British population, British farmers, British producers would want to lower our food safety standards for the benefit of the American food produce industry. I don't understand why you and others are being drawn into food standards, they will not change in the UK and will need to be either ironed out or we remove trade in specific items from the deal. We have made several agreements with countries that follow this route, such as Canada. It would also be beneficial to look into our already existing trade with the US, which as a single country entity is our biggest trade partner, followed by Germany, Netherlands, France and China. You need to read up about the UK/Canada deal; Canadian farmers are demanding that for the review, hormone treated beef be on the table. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68098177 The USA has told the UK previously that access for US food is a must. I understand the Canadian trade deal we have and it does not contain food stuffs that do not meet our UK standards, it was taken off the table. They have imposed tariffs that make certain produce from the UK to expensive as they protect their own market, such is the deal. The outcome meets our standards without compromise. That's with the current deal, which will be renegotiated & where Canada has demanded that hormone treated beef be abled into The UK; any possible US deal means US standard food is on the table; if the UK has signed up to those standards, then the red tape with The EU will increase, as The EU will not trust that US agricultural produce is not in a UK food product being exported to The EU. The UK can only ride the 2 horses of The EU & The US for so long; if it goes with one, it will compromise the other. To claim it can continue to do both into the future is wishful thinking. (It is maybe possible but will be a nightmare in terms of regulation, production lines, costs, health to the consumer) I understand where you are coming from now. You are talking about a FTA with the US? I agree that is not going to happen mainly for the reasons you have set out. We won't get a FTA with the EU either, so I see nothing really changing. OK, glad we are on the same page. The UK has a FTA with the EU, was Johnson's, Frost's oven ready deal That is the problem with Brexit we don't have a FTA, we have TCA. We have tariff and quota free trade, but now have customs and regulatory obligations. We also have MoUs with individual states in the US. If the U.S. food is as bad as it sounds then best not entertain it at all on UK health grounds alone let alone any complications with the EU. That said we heard similar things when the deal was done with Australia and new Zealand but it has not caused any health or trade problems as far,as I know. A lot depends on the current government and what they feel is most beneficial should any trade deal be suggested. Without any deal, the U.S. is already by far the largest trade partner compared to any other country and bigger than several EU countries combined. " There are currently barriers to Australian agri produce entering the UK but they will be phased out in the next 10~15 years Even Brexiteer George Justice, who helped negotiate the deal, said the UK-Aus deal was bad for UK farmers https://www.ft.com/content/a9ce4564-930f-439a-ac42-d9b055712ee6 EU as a block is a larger importer (53%), export of trade (45%) for the UK. (USA is the largest single country, but EU as a total is more) https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-overseas-trade-in-goods-statistics-june-2023/uk-overseas-trade-in-goods-statistics-june-2023-commentary#eu-and-non-eu-trade-in-goods | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. If our existing obligations to, in this instance, good safety standards, then we can't do the deals the Americans want. You are not considering the UK as a supplier who has multiple options, to service multiple customers. Not sure why the EU would by goods from us, or why the British population, British farmers, British producers would want to lower our food safety standards for the benefit of the American food produce industry. I don't understand why you and others are being drawn into food standards, they will not change in the UK and will need to be either ironed out or we remove trade in specific items from the deal. We have made several agreements with countries that follow this route, such as Canada. It would also be beneficial to look into our already existing trade with the US, which as a single country entity is our biggest trade partner, followed by Germany, Netherlands, France and China. You need to read up about the UK/Canada deal; Canadian farmers are demanding that for the review, hormone treated beef be on the table. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68098177 The USA has told the UK previously that access for US food is a must. I understand the Canadian trade deal we have and it does not contain food stuffs that do not meet our UK standards, it was taken off the table. They have imposed tariffs that make certain produce from the UK to expensive as they protect their own market, such is the deal. The outcome meets our standards without compromise. That's with the current deal, which will be renegotiated & where Canada has demanded that hormone treated beef be abled into The UK; any possible US deal means US standard food is on the table; if the UK has signed up to those standards, then the red tape with The EU will increase, as The EU will not trust that US agricultural produce is not in a UK food product being exported to The EU. The UK can only ride the 2 horses of The EU & The US for so long; if it goes with one, it will compromise the other. To claim it can continue to do both into the future is wishful thinking. (It is maybe possible but will be a nightmare in terms of regulation, production lines, costs, health to the consumer) I understand where you are coming from now. You are talking about a FTA with the US? I agree that is not going to happen mainly for the reasons you have set out. We won't get a FTA with the EU either, so I see nothing really changing. OK, glad we are on the same page. The UK has a FTA with the EU, was Johnson's, Frost's oven ready deal That is the problem with Brexit we don't have a FTA, we have TCA. We have tariff and quota free trade, but now have customs and regulatory obligations. We also have MoUs with individual states in the US. If the U.S. food is as bad as it sounds then best not entertain it at all on UK health grounds alone let alone any complications with the EU. That said we heard similar things when the deal was done with Australia and new Zealand but it has not caused any health or trade problems as far,as I know. A lot depends on the current government and what they feel is most beneficial should any trade deal be suggested. Without any deal, the U.S. is already by far the largest trade partner compared to any other country and bigger than several EU countries combined. There are currently barriers to Australian agri produce entering the UK but they will be phased out in the next 10~15 years Even Brexiteer George Justice, who helped negotiate the deal, said the UK-Aus deal was bad for UK farmers https://www.ft.com/content/a9ce4564-930f-439a-ac42-d9b055712ee6 EU as a block is a larger importer (53%), export of trade (45%) for the UK. (USA is the largest single country, but EU as a total is more) https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-overseas-trade-in-goods-statistics-june-2023/uk-overseas-trade-in-goods-statistics-june-2023-commentary#eu-and-non-eu-trade-in-goods" Bad for farmers? Where were the protests? Where was the faux outrage that we are now seeing? I guess those moaning about farmers being shafted by labour are hypocrites | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. If our existing obligations to, in this instance, good safety standards, then we can't do the deals the Americans want. You are not considering the UK as a supplier who has multiple options, to service multiple customers. Not sure why the EU would by goods from us, or why the British population, British farmers, British producers would want to lower our food safety standards for the benefit of the American food produce industry. I don't understand why you and others are being drawn into food standards, they will not change in the UK and will need to be either ironed out or we remove trade in specific items from the deal. We have made several agreements with countries that follow this route, such as Canada. It would also be beneficial to look into our already existing trade with the US, which as a single country entity is our biggest trade partner, followed by Germany, Netherlands, France and China. You need to read up about the UK/Canada deal; Canadian farmers are demanding that for the review, hormone treated beef be on the table. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68098177 The USA has told the UK previously that access for US food is a must. I understand the Canadian trade deal we have and it does not contain food stuffs that do not meet our UK standards, it was taken off the table. They have imposed tariffs that make certain produce from the UK to expensive as they protect their own market, such is the deal. The outcome meets our standards without compromise. That's with the current deal, which will be renegotiated & where Canada has demanded that hormone treated beef be abled into The UK; any possible US deal means US standard food is on the table; if the UK has signed up to those standards, then the red tape with The EU will increase, as The EU will not trust that US agricultural produce is not in a UK food product being exported to The EU. The UK can only ride the 2 horses of The EU & The US for so long; if it goes with one, it will compromise the other. To claim it can continue to do both into the future is wishful thinking. (It is maybe possible but will be a nightmare in terms of regulation, production lines, costs, health to the consumer) I understand where you are coming from now. You are talking about a FTA with the US? I agree that is not going to happen mainly for the reasons you have set out. We won't get a FTA with the EU either, so I see nothing really changing. OK, glad we are on the same page. The UK has a FTA with the EU, was Johnson's, Frost's oven ready deal That is the problem with Brexit we don't have a FTA, we have TCA. We have tariff and quota free trade, but now have customs and regulatory obligations. We also have MoUs with individual states in the US. If the U.S. food is as bad as it sounds then best not entertain it at all on UK health grounds alone let alone any complications with the EU. That said we heard similar things when the deal was done with Australia and new Zealand but it has not caused any health or trade problems as far,as I know. A lot depends on the current government and what they feel is most beneficial should any trade deal be suggested. Without any deal, the U.S. is already by far the largest trade partner compared to any other country and bigger than several EU countries combined. There are currently barriers to Australian agri produce entering the UK but they will be phased out in the next 10~15 years Even Brexiteer George Justice, who helped negotiate the deal, said the UK-Aus deal was bad for UK farmers https://www.ft.com/content/a9ce4564-930f-439a-ac42-d9b055712ee6 EU as a block is a larger importer (53%), export of trade (45%) for the UK. (USA is the largest single country, but EU as a total is more) https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-overseas-trade-in-goods-statistics-june-2023/uk-overseas-trade-in-goods-statistics-june-2023-commentary#eu-and-non-eu-trade-in-goods" I know the EU as a whole is bigger than the U.S. on its own and never claimed it wasn't. I just said that the U.S. is by far the biggest trade partner as a country and bigger than several EU countries combined. All this without a trade agreement lead me to say that if American food is bad then best not do a deal and keep things as they are | |||
"But the UK has more trade with the EU than it does with the US" What a surprise, we do more trade with the people that we have a trade deal with than we do with those that we don't have a deal with. Funny how these things work. | |||
"But the UK has more trade with the EU than it does with the US What a surprise, we do more trade with the people that we have a trade deal with than we do with those that we don't have a deal with. Funny how these things work." Or to put it another way; you do more trade with your neighbours compared to people in the Pacific | |||
"There are food safety concerns from US and EU. US = growth hormones, chemical rinsing, dna modifications EU = hepatitis E, salmonella, EHD, animal welfare. Maybe the government should be promoting UK farmers instead of kicking them in the teeth? If you don’t think the US has salmonella outbreaks, you will need to look into the incident that nearly took down olive garden a few years ago….. Even in the last 2 weeks there has been a serious food safety incident E. coli at McDonald’s in the western half of the US linked back to the ingredients they used isn’t this why the dems lost scaremongering just doesn’t work ppl will choose to eat food from the USA or they won’t it’s called choice Huh.. where do you make that leap.. Over 100 people have been affected and 2 people have died in this E. coli outbreak I believe you _abio I’m just saying ppl will make tbere own choices regarding eating American food in the U.K. I hope you’re right Foxy but last time the negotiation team on the US side raised that they wanted the country of origin removed from certain ranges of food. That is a worry. Why would that be an issue for them? No I can’t give you the quote as I can’t remember the source but I can confirm it was a genuine comment at the time, but that’s the point of negotiations tho one side asks for this the other for that it’s upto the U.K. side to get the best for us time will tell on this Do you think any government we’ve had in the last 25years would be strong enough? I sadly doubt it. That’s not a comment on our society wanting wants best that’s a comment on our terrible political class. Time will indeed tell I agree. " ha absolutely not and this goverment are as weak as they come sadly | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. If our existing obligations to, in this instance, good safety standards, then we can't do the deals the Americans want. You are not considering the UK as a supplier who has multiple options, to service multiple customers. Not sure why the EU would by goods from us, or why the British population, British farmers, British producers would want to lower our food safety standards for the benefit of the American food produce industry. I don't understand why you and others are being drawn into food standards, they will not change in the UK and will need to be either ironed out or we remove trade in specific items from the deal. We have made several agreements with countries that follow this route, such as Canada. It would also be beneficial to look into our already existing trade with the US, which as a single country entity is our biggest trade partner, followed by Germany, Netherlands, France and China. You need to read up about the UK/Canada deal; Canadian farmers are demanding that for the review, hormone treated beef be on the table. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68098177 The USA has told the UK previously that access for US food is a must. I understand the Canadian trade deal we have and it does not contain food stuffs that do not meet our UK standards, it was taken off the table. They have imposed tariffs that make certain produce from the UK to expensive as they protect their own market, such is the deal. The outcome meets our standards without compromise. That's with the current deal, which will be renegotiated & where Canada has demanded that hormone treated beef be abled into The UK; any possible US deal means US standard food is on the table; if the UK has signed up to those standards, then the red tape with The EU will increase, as The EU will not trust that US agricultural produce is not in a UK food product being exported to The EU. The UK can only ride the 2 horses of The EU & The US for so long; if it goes with one, it will compromise the other. To claim it can continue to do both into the future is wishful thinking. (It is maybe possible but will be a nightmare in terms of regulation, production lines, costs, health to the consumer) I understand where you are coming from now. You are talking about a FTA with the US? I agree that is not going to happen mainly for the reasons you have set out. We won't get a FTA with the EU either, so I see nothing really changing. OK, glad we are on the same page. The UK has a FTA with the EU, was Johnson's, Frost's oven ready deal That is the problem with Brexit we don't have a FTA, we have TCA. We have tariff and quota free trade, but now have customs and regulatory obligations. We also have MoUs with individual states in the US. If the U.S. food is as bad as it sounds then best not entertain it at all on UK health grounds alone let alone any complications with the EU. That said we heard similar things when the deal was done with Australia and new Zealand but it has not caused any health or trade problems as far,as I know. A lot depends on the current government and what they feel is most beneficial should any trade deal be suggested. Without any deal, the U.S. is already by far the largest trade partner compared to any other country and bigger than several EU countries combined. But the UK has more trade with the EU than it does with the US The EU is not a country, it is 27 countries and I mentioned the U.S. is by far our biggest trade partner as a country. " I wasn't contradicting you! You are absolutely correct that the US is a bigger trading partner than any country in the EU but the original post compares the EU to the US and I was only trying to point out that the EU (as a group of countries similar to the US being a group of states) is the bigger trading partner. If the UK has to choose between the US and the UK based on trade, it is surely better to compare the EU as a group of countries who trade together rather than by individual countries. You are, however absolutely correct - the US is bigger and also a bigger trading partner with the UK than any individual country within the EU | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. If our existing obligations to, in this instance, good safety standards, then we can't do the deals the Americans want. You are not considering the UK as a supplier who has multiple options, to service multiple customers. Not sure why the EU would by goods from us, or why the British population, British farmers, British producers would want to lower our food safety standards for the benefit of the American food produce industry. I don't understand why you and others are being drawn into food standards, they will not change in the UK and will need to be either ironed out or we remove trade in specific items from the deal. We have made several agreements with countries that follow this route, such as Canada. It would also be beneficial to look into our already existing trade with the US, which as a single country entity is our biggest trade partner, followed by Germany, Netherlands, France and China. You need to read up about the UK/Canada deal; Canadian farmers are demanding that for the review, hormone treated beef be on the table. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68098177 The USA has told the UK previously that access for US food is a must. I understand the Canadian trade deal we have and it does not contain food stuffs that do not meet our UK standards, it was taken off the table. They have imposed tariffs that make certain produce from the UK to expensive as they protect their own market, such is the deal. The outcome meets our standards without compromise. That's with the current deal, which will be renegotiated & where Canada has demanded that hormone treated beef be abled into The UK; any possible US deal means US standard food is on the table; if the UK has signed up to those standards, then the red tape with The EU will increase, as The EU will not trust that US agricultural produce is not in a UK food product being exported to The EU. The UK can only ride the 2 horses of The EU & The US for so long; if it goes with one, it will compromise the other. To claim it can continue to do both into the future is wishful thinking. (It is maybe possible but will be a nightmare in terms of regulation, production lines, costs, health to the consumer) I understand where you are coming from now. You are talking about a FTA with the US? I agree that is not going to happen mainly for the reasons you have set out. We won't get a FTA with the EU either, so I see nothing really changing. OK, glad we are on the same page. The UK has a FTA with the EU, was Johnson's, Frost's oven ready deal That is the problem with Brexit we don't have a FTA, we have TCA. We have tariff and quota free trade, but now have customs and regulatory obligations. We also have MoUs with individual states in the US. If the U.S. food is as bad as it sounds then best not entertain it at all on UK health grounds alone let alone any complications with the EU. That said we heard similar things when the deal was done with Australia and new Zealand but it has not caused any health or trade problems as far,as I know. A lot depends on the current government and what they feel is most beneficial should any trade deal be suggested. Without any deal, the U.S. is already by far the largest trade partner compared to any other country and bigger than several EU countries combined. There are currently barriers to Australian agri produce entering the UK but they will be phased out in the next 10~15 years Even Brexiteer George Justice, who helped negotiate the deal, said the UK-Aus deal was bad for UK farmers https://www.ft.com/content/a9ce4564-930f-439a-ac42-d9b055712ee6 EU as a block is a larger importer (53%), export of trade (45%) for the UK. (USA is the largest single country, but EU as a total is more) https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-overseas-trade-in-goods-statistics-june-2023/uk-overseas-trade-in-goods-statistics-june-2023-commentary#eu-and-non-eu-trade-in-goods I know the EU as a whole is bigger than the U.S. on its own and never claimed it wasn't. I just said that the U.S. is by far the biggest trade partner as a country and bigger than several EU countries combined. All this without a trade agreement lead me to say that if American food is bad then best not do a deal and keep things as they are" Apologies; I messed things up on my end; glad we are on the same page | |||
| |||
"If as many economists are predicting the US economy could nosedive with trumps tariffs and tax giveaways then maybe safer to stick with a friendly if stagnant EU. I’d rather trade with a stable future market than the loonies tunes about to enter the White House. Sky tv host for defence secretary .. I know he was once a soldier but really? Loyalty is one thing but competence must play a part surely? Is Trump a Russian asset ? Putting all these loyal under qualified people in power is a real danger to the American government infrastructure. Anyway in balance I’d prefer the EU. No shock there I know. "the shock was the stable future market bit lol | |||
"People need to remember that the deeper the trade with The US, the more barriers to trade with The EU will be, which the current barriers are already damaging the UK's economy. Would also mean more trading issues with GB & NI. US will ask for food access; I would recommend people read up about existing US food standards; UK population is already one of Europe's unhealthiest populations; add to that poor food hygiene from standard US food & watch the NHS suffer. Why would a trade deal with the US alter the trade we have with the EU? It is in our interests to trade with both and negotiation would always take into consideration our already agreed obligations. I can understand a nervous apprehension allowing the current government to lead the negotiations, but the civil service will pick up the slack How would the US be able to sell us hormone pumped meat, veggies covered in chemicals that are currently illegal if we don't lower our food safety standards, which in turn would mean we can't trade produce with the EU? Imagine the UK agrees to use US sourced hormone treated beef for, let's say a meat pie that is currently sold in The EU. If that producer use hormone treated beef in their product, that product cannot be sold in The EU. If that producer decides to not use hormone treated beef, they still will have to use a vet cert to prove that the pie going to The EU doesn't contain hormone treated beef. Only option is to have two separate production lines, one using US beef, one using beef to EU standards...the cost of which will be put onto the customer, therefore making the pie uncompetitive...a lose-lose for the pie producer & consumer That definitely shafts British producers. But would the EU accept that? In the case of shellfish cleaning, it wouldn't be good enough. you seem to be focusing on trade deals that require certain prerequisites, that will not change, our obligations remain the same. If our existing obligations to, in this instance, good safety standards, then we can't do the deals the Americans want. You are not considering the UK as a supplier who has multiple options, to service multiple customers. Not sure why the EU would by goods from us, or why the British population, British farmers, British producers would want to lower our food safety standards for the benefit of the American food produce industry. I don't understand why you and others are being drawn into food standards, they will not change in the UK and will need to be either ironed out or we remove trade in specific items from the deal. We have made several agreements with countries that follow this route, such as Canada. It would also be beneficial to look into our already existing trade with the US, which as a single country entity is our biggest trade partner, followed by Germany, Netherlands, France and China. You need to read up about the UK/Canada deal; Canadian farmers are demanding that for the review, hormone treated beef be on the table. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68098177 The USA has told the UK previously that access for US food is a must. I understand the Canadian trade deal we have and it does not contain food stuffs that do not meet our UK standards, it was taken off the table. They have imposed tariffs that make certain produce from the UK to expensive as they protect their own market, such is the deal. The outcome meets our standards without compromise. That's with the current deal, which will be renegotiated & where Canada has demanded that hormone treated beef be abled into The UK; any possible US deal means US standard food is on the table; if the UK has signed up to those standards, then the red tape with The EU will increase, as The EU will not trust that US agricultural produce is not in a UK food product being exported to The EU. The UK can only ride the 2 horses of The EU & The US for so long; if it goes with one, it will compromise the other. To claim it can continue to do both into the future is wishful thinking. (It is maybe possible but will be a nightmare in terms of regulation, production lines, costs, health to the consumer) I understand where you are coming from now. You are talking about a FTA with the US? I agree that is not going to happen mainly for the reasons you have set out. We won't get a FTA with the EU either, so I see nothing really changing. OK, glad we are on the same page. The UK has a FTA with the EU, was Johnson's, Frost's oven ready deal That is the problem with Brexit we don't have a FTA, we have TCA. We have tariff and quota free trade, but now have customs and regulatory obligations. We also have MoUs with individual states in the US. If the U.S. food is as bad as it sounds then best not entertain it at all on UK health grounds alone let alone any complications with the EU. That said we heard similar things when the deal was done with Australia and new Zealand but it has not caused any health or trade problems as far,as I know. A lot depends on the current government and what they feel is most beneficial should any trade deal be suggested. Without any deal, the U.S. is already by far the largest trade partner compared to any other country and bigger than several EU countries combined. There are currently barriers to Australian agri produce entering the UK but they will be phased out in the next 10~15 years Even Brexiteer George Justice, who helped negotiate the deal, said the UK-Aus deal was bad for UK farmers https://www.ft.com/content/a9ce4564-930f-439a-ac42-d9b055712ee6 EU as a block is a larger importer (53%), export of trade (45%) for the UK. (USA is the largest single country, but EU as a total is more) https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-overseas-trade-in-goods-statistics-june-2023/uk-overseas-trade-in-goods-statistics-june-2023-commentary#eu-and-non-eu-trade-in-goods I know the EU as a whole is bigger than the U.S. on its own and never claimed it wasn't. I just said that the U.S. is by far the biggest trade partner as a country and bigger than several EU countries combined. All this without a trade agreement lead me to say that if American food is bad then best not do a deal and keep things as they are Apologies; I messed things up on my end; glad we are on the same page " | |||
"But the UK has more trade with the EU than it does with the US What a surprise, we do more trade with the people that we have a trade deal with than we do with those that we don't have a deal with. Funny how these things work. Or to put it another way; you do more trade with your neighbours compared to people in the Pacific" UK exports to non EU countries around the world are greater than those to the EU neighbours (58.6% compared to 41.4%). Exports to the U.S. have grown 1.5 times faster than the EU since 2016 | |||
"If as many economists are predicting the US economy could nosedive with trumps tariffs and tax giveaways then maybe safer to stick with a friendly if stagnant EU. I’d rather trade with a stable future market than the loonies tunes about to enter the White House. Sky tv host for defence secretary .. I know he was once a soldier but really? Loyalty is one thing but competence must play a part surely? Is Trump a Russian asset ? Putting all these loyal under qualified people in power is a real danger to the American government infrastructure. Anyway in balance I’d prefer the EU. No shock there I know. the shock was the stable future market bit lol"Well it may go up or down a bit as we have gone down lately but compared to what Trumps doing I think hmmm . Thanks but no thanks . I’ll stick with boring but safe for now. It won’t bother me but may affect the following generations if we get too close to the orange one and his band of thugs. | |||
| |||
"But the UK has more trade with the EU than it does with the US What a surprise, we do more trade with the people that we have a trade deal with than we do with those that we don't have a deal with. Funny how these things work. Or to put it another way; you do more trade with your neighbours compared to people in the Pacific UK exports to non EU countries around the world are greater than those to the EU neighbours (58.6% compared to 41.4%). Exports to the U.S. have grown 1.5 times faster than the EU since 2016" Our greatest trading partner as a block is the EU. Also look at the breakdown of those goods we sell around the world and how much they contribute to employment. If we get into a spat with the US a lot of our trade is in services so less likely to be affected. Trying to play down the importance of the EU is definitely head in the sand territory . The constant decline in trade has lead the governor of the Bank of England to make comment around we need to get closer not further away as it’s hurting our economy . I think he will know more than us ramblers on a swingers site. | |||
"Do we really care what the Bulgarians think about our meat pies ? Come on, we smashed Napoleon, the Kaiser and Herr Hitler on Britsh beef and ale ! "I think our empire days involved a lot of Rum so I’m good with that !! Maybe it’s time to get a bit belligerent again! | |||
"Do we really care what the Bulgarians think about our meat pies ? Come on, we smashed Napoleon, the Kaiser and Herr Hitler on Britsh beef and ale !
I think our empire days involved a lot of Rum so I’m good with that !!
Maybe it’s time to get a bit belligerent again!
"That's true. Or rum, bum and concertina as the Navy used to say   | |||
"But the UK has more trade with the EU than it does with the US What a surprise, we do more trade with the people that we have a trade deal with than we do with those that we don't have a deal with. Funny how these things work. Or to put it another way; you do more trade with your neighbours compared to people in the Pacific UK exports to non EU countries around the world are greater than those to the EU neighbours (58.6% compared to 41.4%). Exports to the U.S. have grown 1.5 times faster than the EU since 2016 Our greatest trading partner as a block is the EU. Also look at the breakdown of those goods we sell around the world and how much they contribute to employment. If we get into a spat with the US a lot of our trade is in services so less likely to be affected. Trying to play down the importance of the EU is definitely head in the sand territory . The constant decline in trade has lead the governor of the Bank of England to make comment around we need to get closer not further away as it’s hurting our economy . I think he will know more than us ramblers on a swingers site. " Who is playing down the EU? I have already said that as a block they are the largest trading partner. My post showed that it is not correct to say we do more trade with the neighbours than the rest of the world. Also exports to the U.S. are increasing faster than the EU. All this without any trade deal leads me to say it's not worth the hassle of a U.S. trade deal if it involves poor quality food and complicates things with the EU. In other words I am favouring the EU as trade with the U.S. is doing more than ok as it is | |||
"But the UK has more trade with the EU than it does with the US What a surprise, we do more trade with the people that we have a trade deal with than we do with those that we don't have a deal with. Funny how these things work. Or to put it another way; you do more trade with your neighbours compared to people in the Pacific UK exports to non EU countries around the world are greater than those to the EU neighbours (58.6% compared to 41.4%). Exports to the U.S. have grown 1.5 times faster than the EU since 2016 Our greatest trading partner as a block is the EU. Also look at the breakdown of those goods we sell around the world and how much they contribute to employment. If we get into a spat with the US a lot of our trade is in services so less likely to be affected. Trying to play down the importance of the EU is definitely head in the sand territory . The constant decline in trade has lead the governor of the Bank of England to make comment around we need to get closer not further away as it’s hurting our economy . I think he will know more than us ramblers on a swingers site. Who is playing down the EU? I have already said that as a block they are the largest trading partner. My post showed that it is not correct to say we do more trade with the neighbours than the rest of the world. Also exports to the U.S. are increasing faster than the EU. All this without any trade deal leads me to say it's not worth the hassle of a U.S. trade deal if it involves poor quality food and complicates things with the EU. In other words I am favouring the EU as trade with the U.S. is doing more than ok as it is" I agree with you
I was under the wrong impression you were undermining how important the EU Is to the UK.
My mistake | |||
| |||
"So much misunderstanding of the EU, the US and our trading position. Post Brexit I would have expected awareness to have lifted significantly." A lot of people are still waiting to be educated on the benefits so give them a chance. It’s been a long wait so far. | |||
"So much misunderstanding of the EU, the US and our trading position. Post Brexit I would have expected awareness to have lifted significantly. A lot of people are still waiting to be educated on the benefits so give them a chance. It’s been a long wait so far. " Nothing to do with benefits post brexit, a basic understanding of the EU would be advantageous.... | |||
"So much misunderstanding of the EU, the US and our trading position. Post Brexit I would have expected awareness to have lifted significantly. A lot of people are still waiting to be educated on the benefits so give them a chance. It’s been a long wait so far. Nothing to do with benefits post brexit, a basic understanding of the EU would be advantageous.... " Easy to understand the Brexit benefits thus far... there are none. Careful what you wish for....too late! | |||
| |||
"So much misunderstanding of the EU, the US and our trading position. Post Brexit I would have expected awareness to have lifted significantly. A lot of people are still waiting to be educated on the benefits so give them a chance. It’s been a long wait so far. Nothing to do with benefits post brexit, a basic understanding of the EU would be advantageous.... " If only we had this in 2016. | |||
"So much misunderstanding of the EU, the US and our trading position. Post Brexit I would have expected awareness to have lifted significantly. A lot of people are still waiting to be educated on the benefits so give them a chance. It’s been a long wait so far. Nothing to do with benefits post brexit, a basic understanding of the EU would be advantageous.... " I think the majority of Brits understood the EU all too well - and voted accordingly. | |||
"So much misunderstanding of the EU, the US and our trading position. Post Brexit I would have expected awareness to have lifted significantly. A lot of people are still waiting to be educated on the benefits so give them a chance. It’s been a long wait so far. Nothing to do with benefits post brexit, a basic understanding of the EU would be advantageous.... I think the majority of Brits understood the EU all too well - and voted accordingly. "Erm. I think you'll find more people voted to leave the EU. | |||
"So much misunderstanding of the EU, the US and our trading position. Post Brexit I would have expected awareness to have lifted significantly. A lot of people are still waiting to be educated on the benefits so give them a chance. It’s been a long wait so far. Nothing to do with benefits post brexit, a basic understanding of the EU would be advantageous.... I think the majority of Brits understood the EU all too well - and voted accordingly.
Erm. I think you'll find more people voted to leave the EU."We can agree on that | |||
"So much misunderstanding of the EU, the US and our trading position. Post Brexit I would have expected awareness to have lifted significantly. A lot of people are still waiting to be educated on the benefits so give them a chance. It’s been a long wait so far. Nothing to do with benefits post brexit, a basic understanding of the EU would be advantageous.... I think the majority of Brits understood the EU all too well - and voted accordingly.
Erm. I think you'll find more people voted to leave the EU.
We can agree on that "We can, but you seem to have contradicted yourself. | |||
"So much misunderstanding of the EU, the US and our trading position. Post Brexit I would have expected awareness to have lifted significantly. A lot of people are still waiting to be educated on the benefits so give them a chance. It’s been a long wait so far. Nothing to do with benefits post brexit, a basic understanding of the EU would be advantageous.... I think the majority of Brits understood the EU all too well - and voted accordingly.
Erm. I think you'll find more people voted to leave the EU.
We can agree on that
We can, but you seem to have contradicted yourself. "Not at all. You opined " a basic understanding of the EU would be advantageous....". And so it proved. | |||
"So much misunderstanding of the EU, the US and our trading position. Post Brexit I would have expected awareness to have lifted significantly. A lot of people are still waiting to be educated on the benefits so give them a chance. It’s been a long wait so far. Nothing to do with benefits post brexit, a basic understanding of the EU would be advantageous.... I think the majority of Brits understood the EU all too well - and voted accordingly.
Erm. I think you'll find more people voted to leave the EU.
We can agree on that
We can, but you seem to have contradicted yourself.
Not at all. You opined " a basic understanding of the EU would be advantageous....". And so it proved."But more people voted to leave the EU than voted to stay. You can see your contradiction. | |||
"So much misunderstanding of the EU, the US and our trading position. Post Brexit I would have expected awareness to have lifted significantly. A lot of people are still waiting to be educated on the benefits so give them a chance. It’s been a long wait so far. Nothing to do with benefits post brexit, a basic understanding of the EU would be advantageous.... I think the majority of Brits understood the EU all too well - and voted accordingly.
Erm. I think you'll find more people voted to leave the EU.
We can agree on that
We can, but you seem to have contradicted yourself.
Not at all. You opined " a basic understanding of the EU would be advantageous....". And so it proved.
But more people voted to leave the EU than voted to stay.
You can see your contradiction. "democracy for ya | |||
"18% of UK trade is with America 43% of UK trade is with the EU" Indeed with nearly a fifth of exports going to one country thousands of miles away, without any trade deal and the exports growing rapidly, I don't feel we need to upset the relationship with our neighbours and put at risk people's health | |||
"18% of UK trade is with America 43% of UK trade is with the EU Indeed with nearly a fifth of exports going to one country thousands of miles away, without any trade deal and the exports growing rapidly, I don't feel we need to upset the relationship with our neighbours and put at risk people's health" The trick is to have innovative goods and services that people in other countries want to buy. They will find a way, tariffs or not. But sadly Labour do not seem to be living up to their promise to be 'business friendly', quite the opposite in fact. | |||
"18% of UK trade is with America 43% of UK trade is with the EU Indeed with nearly a fifth of exports going to one country thousands of miles away, without any trade deal and the exports growing rapidly, I don't feel we need to upset the relationship with our neighbours and put at risk people's health The trick is to have innovative goods and services that people in other countries want to buy. They will find a way, tariffs or not. But sadly Labour do not seem to be living up to their promise to be 'business friendly', quite the opposite in fact." Just seen this in the paper. "UK and US sign civil nuclear collaboration deal Britain and the United States have signed a new agreement to collaborate on civil nuclear technology at the COP29 summit. The agreement, signed by UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and US Deputy Secretary of Energy David Turk today, aims to pool billions in research funds and share information on advanced nuclear technologies. The goal is to speed up the development of new technologies, such as advanced modular reactors, to help decarbonise industry and boost energy security." | |||
"18% of UK trade is with America 43% of UK trade is with the EU Indeed with nearly a fifth of exports going to one country thousands of miles away, without any trade deal and the exports growing rapidly, I don't feel we need to upset the relationship with our neighbours and put at risk people's health The trick is to have innovative goods and services that people in other countries want to buy. They will find a way, tariffs or not. But sadly Labour do not seem to be living up to their promise to be 'business friendly', quite the opposite in fact. Just seen this in the paper. "UK and US sign civil nuclear collaboration deal Britain and the United States have signed a new agreement to collaborate on civil nuclear technology at the COP29 summit. The agreement, signed by UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and US Deputy Secretary of Energy David Turk today, aims to pool billions in research funds and share information on advanced nuclear technologies. The goal is to speed up the development of new technologies, such as advanced modular reactors, to help decarbonise industry and boost energy security."" This is a good point. If we want wine and sausages, the EU is a good choice. But for technology, AI and computing, the US is a better choice e.g. the entire EU don't have a University in the top 10 (US 7, UK 3). | |||
"18% of UK trade is with America 43% of UK trade is with the EU Indeed with nearly a fifth of exports going to one country thousands of miles away, without any trade deal and the exports growing rapidly, I don't feel we need to upset the relationship with our neighbours and put at risk people's health The trick is to have innovative goods and services that people in other countries want to buy. They will find a way, tariffs or not. But sadly Labour do not seem to be living up to their promise to be 'business friendly', quite the opposite in fact. Just seen this in the paper. "UK and US sign civil nuclear collaboration deal Britain and the United States have signed a new agreement to collaborate on civil nuclear technology at the COP29 summit. The agreement, signed by UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and US Deputy Secretary of Energy David Turk today, aims to pool billions in research funds and share information on advanced nuclear technologies. The goal is to speed up the development of new technologies, such as advanced modular reactors, to help decarbonise industry and boost energy security." This is a good point. If we want wine and sausages, the EU is a good choice. But for technology, AI and computing, the US is a better choice e.g. the entire EU don't have a University in the top 10 (US 7, UK 3)." Ha; read the official release https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-us-join-forces-to-speed-up-advanced-nuclear-technologies "The new agreement will come into force from 1 March 2025 and is expected to also be signed by: Canada, France, Japan, Republic of Korea, Republic of South Africa, China, Euratom, Switzerland and Australia." Euratom is a body the EU is part of...so not exactly possible due to Brexit | |||
"18% of UK trade is with America 43% of UK trade is with the EU Indeed with nearly a fifth of exports going to one country thousands of miles away, without any trade deal and the exports growing rapidly, I don't feel we need to upset the relationship with our neighbours and put at risk people's health The trick is to have innovative goods and services that people in other countries want to buy. They will find a way, tariffs or not. But sadly Labour do not seem to be living up to their promise to be 'business friendly', quite the opposite in fact. Just seen this in the paper. "UK and US sign civil nuclear collaboration deal Britain and the United States have signed a new agreement to collaborate on civil nuclear technology at the COP29 summit. The agreement, signed by UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and US Deputy Secretary of Energy David Turk today, aims to pool billions in research funds and share information on advanced nuclear technologies. The goal is to speed up the development of new technologies, such as advanced modular reactors, to help decarbonise industry and boost energy security." This is a good point. If we want wine and sausages, the EU is a good choice. But for technology, AI and computing, the US is a better choice e.g. the entire EU don't have a University in the top 10 (US 7, UK 3). Ha; read the official release https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-us-join-forces-to-speed-up-advanced-nuclear-technologies "The new agreement will come into force from 1 March 2025 and is expected to also be signed by: Canada, France, Japan, Republic of Korea, Republic of South Africa, China, Euratom, Switzerland and Australia." Euratom is a body the EU is part of...so not exactly possible due to Brexit " I've not read the thread, and I'm not scoring points, just noticed US/UK and had seen the article and last comment re tech sharing. | |||
