FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > US priorities for trading with UK
US priorities for trading with UK
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
The US Department of Trade is “seeking public comments on a proposed US-UK Trade Agreement, including US interests and priorities, in order to develop US negotiating positions”.
Various lobby groups and trade bodies responded. 130 in total. In summary, this is what US business wants the US Government to extract from the UK:
- Scrap the safety-first precautionary principle of the EU towards food safety standards and chemicals
- Get rid of the general data protection regulation
- Allow the sale of US beef bred using hormones (currently banned in EU)
- Abolish beef subsidies for UK farmers
- Remove regulations governing GM food, including mandatory labelling and traceability of GM foods
- Scrap the geographic protections of British produce
- Abolish the framework for testing and approving drugs for use in the NHS
- Remove the ban on sale of hormone-treated milk
- Allow US companies to sue the UK Government when they disagree with UK policy
- Protections for US social media companies
- Remove mandatory labelling of colourings in food
- Remove the ban on hormone-fed pork and testing
- Remove the ban on chlorinated chicken
- Legalise pesticides currently banned in the EU and the sale of food and produce with pesticide residue (also banned)
- Relax carcinogen limits in pistachio nuts
- A mutual recognition clause that would allow the sale of any produce made to US standards where these are lower than UK standards
- Accept US testing of medical products without doing any in the UK
- Remove price controls on NHS purchases
- Allow electronic waste in landfill (currently banned)
Basically, the UK should change its standards from those set in the EU to those set in the US.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The US Department of Trade is “seeking public comments on a proposed US-UK Trade Agreement, including US interests and priorities, in order to develop US negotiating positions”.
Various lobby groups and trade bodies responded. 130 in total. In summary, this is what US business wants the US Government to extract from the UK:
- Scrap the safety-first precautionary principle of the EU towards food safety standards and chemicals
- Get rid of the general data protection regulation
- Allow the sale of US beef bred using hormones (currently banned in EU)
- Abolish beef subsidies for UK farmers
- Remove regulations governing GM food, including mandatory labelling and traceability of GM foods
- Scrap the geographic protections of British produce
- Abolish the framework for testing and approving drugs for use in the NHS
- Remove the ban on sale of hormone-treated milk
- Allow US companies to sue the UK Government when they disagree with UK policy
- Protections for US social media companies
- Remove mandatory labelling of colourings in food
- Remove the ban on hormone-fed pork and testing
- Remove the ban on chlorinated chicken
- Legalise pesticides currently banned in the EU and the sale of food and produce with pesticide residue (also banned)
- Relax carcinogen limits in pistachio nuts
- A mutual recognition clause that would allow the sale of any produce made to US standards where these are lower than UK standards
- Accept US testing of medical products without doing any in the UK
- Remove price controls on NHS purchases
- Allow electronic waste in landfill (currently banned)
Basically, the UK should change its standards from those set in the EU to those set in the US.
"
What they want and what they get are two completely different things! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Indeed.
It's just interesting to see the feedback and how it will inform US negotiating position.
The more the UK diverges from EU standards to meet US standards, the higher the barriers will be between EU and UK trade.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The US Department of Trade is “seeking public comments on a proposed US-UK Trade Agreement, including US interests and priorities, in order to develop US negotiating positions”.
Various lobby groups and trade bodies responded. 130 in total. In summary, this is what US business wants the US Government to extract from the UK:
- Scrap the safety-first precautionary principle of the EU towards food safety standards and chemicals
- Get rid of the general data protection regulation
- Allow the sale of US beef bred using hormones (currently banned in EU)
- Abolish beef subsidies for UK farmers
- Remove regulations governing GM food, including mandatory labelling and traceability of GM foods
- Scrap the geographic protections of British produce
- Abolish the framework for testing and approving drugs for use in the NHS
- Remove the ban on sale of hormone-treated milk
- Allow US companies to sue the UK Government when they disagree with UK policy
- Protections for US social media companies
- Remove mandatory labelling of colourings in food
- Remove the ban on hormone-fed pork and testing
- Remove the ban on chlorinated chicken
- Legalise pesticides currently banned in the EU and the sale of food and produce with pesticide residue (also banned)
- Relax carcinogen limits in pistachio nuts
- A mutual recognition clause that would allow the sale of any produce made to US standards where these are lower than UK standards
- Accept US testing of medical products without doing any in the UK
- Remove price controls on NHS purchases
- Allow electronic waste in landfill (currently banned)
Basically, the UK should change its standards from those set in the EU to those set in the US.
"
Wow.
Brexit isn’t just about money (as we are told). So if we accept even a quarter of these I think it is a sad, sad day.
And a lot of the above starts to feel like entering a CU lite. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The US Department of Trade is “seeking public comments on a proposed US-UK Trade Agreement, including US interests and priorities, in order to develop US negotiating positions”.
Various lobby groups and trade bodies responded. 130 in total. In summary, this is what US business wants the US Government to extract from the UK:
- Scrap the safety-first precautionary principle of the EU towards food safety standards and chemicals
- Get rid of the general data protection regulation
- Allow the sale of US beef bred using hormones (currently banned in EU)
- Abolish beef subsidies for UK farmers
- Remove regulations governing GM food, including mandatory labelling and traceability of GM foods
- Scrap the geographic protections of British produce
- Abolish the framework for testing and approving drugs for use in the NHS
- Remove the ban on sale of hormone-treated milk
- Allow US companies to sue the UK Government when they disagree with UK policy
- Protections for US social media companies
- Remove mandatory labelling of colourings in food
- Remove the ban on hormone-fed pork and testing
- Remove the ban on chlorinated chicken
- Legalise pesticides currently banned in the EU and the sale of food and produce with pesticide residue (also banned)
- Relax carcinogen limits in pistachio nuts
- A mutual recognition clause that would allow the sale of any produce made to US standards where these are lower than UK standards
- Accept US testing of medical products without doing any in the UK
- Remove price controls on NHS purchases
- Allow electronic waste in landfill (currently banned)
Basically, the UK should change its standards from those set in the EU to those set in the US.
"
If we have a FTA destroying Brexit then our Trade minister will most probably roll over and accept anything the USA demands to get a quick deal, hence loosing our sovereignty as soon as we "regain it" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Judging by Mays bargaining skills with the EU, I'm not holding much hope of any good trade deals with anyone... They will all know that the UK gov is desperate to sign up to any trade deals as quickly as possible. Deals that usually take years to complete...  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It'll be a sad day when we give up our sovreignty and are told what to do by the bureaucrats in Washington.
"
It was a sad day in 1973 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by the bureaucrats in Brussels. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"It'll be a sad day when we give up our sovreignty and are told what to do by the bureaucrats in Washington.
It was a sad day in 1973 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by the bureaucrats in Brussels. "
very pithy answer there.... so lets if we can finally get a straight answer out of some of our brexiteer/leaver friends...
is the lowering of animal welfare and food saftey standards worth sacrificing for a uk/us trade deal..... yes or no? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it was a sad day in 1703 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by bureaucrats in London.
"
At least the bureaucrats who make the laws in London are democratically elected MP's and are held to account by the people through the ballot box and can be removed through the power of the ballot box.
The same cannot be said for the unelected bureaucrats who make the laws and run the EU like Juncker and Tusk. They are not elected by the people, they are not held to account by anyone and they can't be removed by the people through the ballot box either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It'll be a sad day when we give up our sovreignty and are told what to do by the bureaucrats in Washington.
It was a sad day in 1973 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by the bureaucrats in Brussels. "
You're always quick to be sarcy against the EU but what's your thoughts on these rules? Do you think Britain will be better off if we adopt these horrible rules just to say we have a massive trade deal with the US? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It'll be a sad day when we give up our sovreignty and are told what to do by the bureaucrats in Washington.
It was a sad day in 1973 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by the bureaucrats in Brussels. "
Dont sorry from april onwards we will be told what to do eat etc by the Yanks . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *naqMan
over a year ago
Ayrshire |
"it was a sad day in 1703 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by bureaucrats in London.
At least the bureaucrats who make the laws in London are democratically elected MP's and are held to account by the people through the ballot box and can be removed through the power of the ballot box.
"
What fantasy is this your spouting now? UK politicians being held to account?
You crack me up matey you really do can someone get Will for another history lesson for poor Centy. Please change the fucking record!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *naqMan
over a year ago
Ayrshire |
"It'll be a sad day when we give up our sovreignty and are told what to do by the bureaucrats in Washington.
It was a sad day in 1973 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by the bureaucrats in Brussels.
Dont sorry from april onwards we will be told what to do eat etc by the Yanks ."
Have you seen some of the news stories in the US? Theirs stories of toxic algi in Miami, Water so poluted in California that fish can't survive. The plants and fish that were tested show levels of radiotion 100x higher than the legally accepted limit of 0.3 millisievert per year the US measure this in becquerels with their new acceptable limit of 400bq/1kg. Just to put that kind of in perspective here 0.3 millisievert is equal to almost 5bq/1kg
That's insane for us to back a US/UK FTA unless we can keep our production and enviromental standards as is which they will never agree. If i remember right Trump tried to force GM meat Beef and Chicken i think on to the British market a while back but it didn't meet our qaulity and standards so couldn't be sold here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It'll be a sad day when we give up our sovreignty and are told what to do by the bureaucrats in Washington.
It was a sad day in 1973 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by the bureaucrats in Brussels. "
How true  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ax ZorinMan
over a year ago
Birdham Chichester |
Trying to ship cheese to South Korea but as we haven't got a replacement trade deal, which Liam Fox and others promised, I can't load the container on a ship at Southampton as it takes 7 weeks to ship and I have no idea of the Tarriffs when it arrives. This is the reality NOT project fear.. my employees will so grateful to the Brexit lot when I have to sack them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It'll be a sad day when we give up our sovreignty and are told what to do by the bureaucrats in Washington.
It was a sad day in 1973 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by the bureaucrats in Brussels.
Dont sorry from april onwards we will be told what to do eat etc by the Yanks ."
Really you will be told what to eat? Are American soldiers going to come over and force feed you their products as well? 
What nonsense.
It's about consumer choice. You'll be able to buy and eat what you want in the shops. No one is going to tell you what to eat, you will choose what to eat.
It's likely in a scenario where we allowed American beef and chicken into the UK for sale it would be cheaper than European beef and chicken. If you want to pay more for European beef and chicken that is your choice and you can carry on doing that. The least well off in society will buy the cheaper American option. The EU are shit scared of this happening because they hate any kind of competition and they know they will lose out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it was a sad day in 1703 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by bureaucrats in London.
At least the bureaucrats who make the laws in London are democratically elected MP's and are held to account by the people through the ballot box and can be removed through the power of the ballot box.
What fantasy is this your spouting now? UK politicians being held to account?
You crack me up matey you really do can someone get Will for another history lesson for poor Centy. Please change the fucking record!
"
It's not fantasy, it's the truth. Or are you trying to say MP's are not democratically elected now? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It'll be a sad day when we give up our sovreignty and are told what to do by the bureaucrats in Washington.
It was a sad day in 1973 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by the bureaucrats in Brussels.
Dont sorry from april onwards we will be told what to do eat etc by the Yanks .
Have you seen some of the news stories in the US? Theirs stories of toxic algi in Miami, Water so poluted in California that fish can't survive. The plants and fish that were tested show levels of radiotion 100x higher than the legally accepted limit of 0.3 millisievert per year the US measure this in becquerels with their new acceptable limit of 400bq/1kg. Just to put that kind of in perspective here 0.3 millisievert is equal to almost 5bq/1kg
That's insane for us to back a US/UK FTA unless we can keep our production and enviromental standards as is which they will never agree. If i remember right Trump tried to force GM meat Beef and Chicken i think on to the British market a while back but it didn't meet our qaulity and standards so couldn't be sold here."
I wonder what you would do if you went on holiday to the USA for a week or 2? Would you starve yourself living in fear and refuse to eat anything while you were over there, trotting out this garbage in every supermarket or restaurant you entered? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"It'll be a sad day when we give up our sovreignty and are told what to do by the bureaucrats in Washington.
It was a sad day in 1973 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by the bureaucrats in Brussels.
Dont sorry from april onwards we will be told what to do eat etc by the Yanks .
Have you seen some of the news stories in the US? Theirs stories of toxic algi in Miami, Water so poluted in California that fish can't survive. The plants and fish that were tested show levels of radiotion 100x higher than the legally accepted limit of 0.3 millisievert per year the US measure this in becquerels with their new acceptable limit of 400bq/1kg. Just to put that kind of in perspective here 0.3 millisievert is equal to almost 5bq/1kg
That's insane for us to back a US/UK FTA unless we can keep our production and enviromental standards as is which they will never agree. If i remember right Trump tried to force GM meat Beef and Chicken i think on to the British market a while back but it didn't meet our qaulity and standards so couldn't be sold here.
I wonder what you would do if you went on holiday to the USA for a week or 2? Would you starve yourself living in fear and refuse to eat anything while you were over there, trotting out this garbage in every supermarket or restaurant you entered? "
Centaur, as you well know, the actual point is that we will not be "negotiating" with the USA. They will tell us what they want and we can say yes or no.
We surender massive sovereignty to the USA including not being able to get a trade deal with China or we whistle.
Your hero Trump cannot offer us a trade deal on the fairytale terms you dream of because they aren't in his gift. The OP has posted the reality of what we face.
Yet, as usual you aim for a laughable micro-victory bases on what we might eat in holiday when we have no choice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It'll be a sad day when we give up our sovreignty and are told what to do by the bureaucrats in Washington.
It was a sad day in 1973 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by the bureaucrats in Brussels.
very pithy answer there.... so lets if we can finally get a straight answer out of some of our brexiteer/leaver friends...
is the lowering of animal welfare and food saftey standards worth sacrificing for a uk/us trade deal..... yes or no?"
Fabio you asked this question last year if the Uk public don’t but there produce it won’t make a difference will it it will be the public that decides |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" How true "
Afain, instead of sarcy comments aimed at the EU, what's your view on these rules the US wants us to adopt?
I also see the other guy ignored our question to him so I guess his answer wasn't a favorable one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"It'll be a sad day when we give up our sovreignty and are told what to do by the bureaucrats in Washington.
It was a sad day in 1973 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by the bureaucrats in Brussels.
very pithy answer there.... so lets if we can finally get a straight answer out of some of our brexiteer/leaver friends...
is the lowering of animal welfare and food saftey standards worth sacrificing for a uk/us trade deal..... yes or no?
Fabio you asked this question last year if the Uk public don’t but there produce it won’t make a difference will it it will be the public that decides "
see... the reason i asked is that is does have real world consequences... especially in northern ireland...
if there are different health and safety standards then you will have to have all border checks on lifestock going north/south...... there is no way around that
you can't say "well this is destined for the UK/US and this is destined for the EU" because you would have to have two seperate structures and they would have to be kept seperate |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It'll be a sad day when we give up our sovreignty and are told what to do by the bureaucrats in Washington.
It was a sad day in 1973 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by the bureaucrats in Brussels.
very pithy answer there.... so lets if we can finally get a straight answer out of some of our brexiteer/leaver friends...
is the lowering of animal welfare and food saftey standards worth sacrificing for a uk/us trade deal..... yes or no?
Fabio you asked this question last year if the Uk public don’t but there produce it won’t make a difference will it it will be the public that decides
see... the reason i asked is that is does have real world consequences... especially in northern ireland...
if there are different health and safety standards then you will have to have all border checks on lifestock going north/south...... there is no way around that
you can't say "well this is destined for the UK/US and this is destined for the EU" because you would have to have two seperate structures and they would have to be kept seperate "
but last yr when you asked this question Fabio yr argument was you won’t know if it’s from the US when you go to say McDonald’s kfc or other takeaways now it’s the Irish border |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"It'll be a sad day when we give up our sovreignty and are told what to do by the bureaucrats in Washington.
It was a sad day in 1973 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by the bureaucrats in Brussels.
very pithy answer there.... so lets if we can finally get a straight answer out of some of our brexiteer/leaver friends...
is the lowering of animal welfare and food saftey standards worth sacrificing for a uk/us trade deal..... yes or no?
Fabio you asked this question last year if the Uk public don’t but there produce it won’t make a difference will it it will be the public that decides
see... the reason i asked is that is does have real world consequences... especially in northern ireland...
if there are different health and safety standards then you will have to have all border checks on lifestock going north/south...... there is no way around that
you can't say "well this is destined for the UK/US and this is destined for the EU" because you would have to have two seperate structures and they would have to be kept seperate
but last yr when you asked this question Fabio yr argument was you won’t know if it’s from the US when you go to say McDonald’s kfc or other takeaways now it’s the Irish border "
and both things would still be true.... if the UK were to lower standards then the likes of takeaways, mcdonalds, kfc or other would be allowed to get it from anywhere... they would also not be oblieged to tell you what standard of animal welfare or food safety they are using... (they might want to tell you if they want to separate themselves from others.. but not legally having to tell you)
and again... any foodstuffs agriculture or otherwise going north/south on the island of ireland would need to be checked, and thus you would need a hard border!... and lifestock leaving this country for the EU via dover would need to be checked, and so on and so on |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The US Department of Trade is “seeking public comments on a proposed US-UK Trade Agreement, including US interests and priorities, in order to develop US negotiating positions”.
Various lobby groups and trade bodies responded. 130 in total. In summary, this is what US business wants the US Government to extract from the UK:
- Scrap the safety-first precautionary principle of the EU towards food safety standards and chemicals
- Get rid of the general data protection regulation
- Allow the sale of US beef bred using hormones (currently banned in EU)
- Abolish beef subsidies for UK farmers
- Remove regulations governing GM food, including mandatory labelling and traceability of GM foods
- Scrap the geographic protections of British produce
- Abolish the framework for testing and approving drugs for use in the NHS
- Remove the ban on sale of hormone-treated milk
- Allow US companies to sue the UK Government when they disagree with UK policy
- Protections for US social media companies
- Remove mandatory labelling of colourings in food
- Remove the ban on hormone-fed pork and testing
- Remove the ban on chlorinated chicken
- Legalise pesticides currently banned in the EU and the sale of food and produce with pesticide residue (also banned)
- Relax carcinogen limits in pistachio nuts
- A mutual recognition clause that would allow the sale of any produce made to US standards where these are lower than UK standards
- Accept US testing of medical products without doing any in the UK
- Remove price controls on NHS purchases
- Allow electronic waste in landfill (currently banned)
Basically, the UK should change its standards from those set in the EU to those set in the US.
"
I have travelled extensively throughout Europe over the last 8 years.
Through those 8 years, I have discovered just how passionate the whole of Europe is about food.
I have mostly been accommodated in hostel grade accommodation and fed with hostel grade, pub grade and generally mid range grade food.
I have sufficient thumbs to count the total amount of bad meals I have eaten in Europe. I don't have sufficient fingers to count the amount of bad mixed grills I've endured in Weatherspoons.
To be fair, the abolition of any subsidy to British farmers would be welcome to me - I've yet to see a British farmer driving a Ford Fiesta as his primary family motor car. The average British farmer is most often richer than the average British teacher/nurse/assembly plant operative.
Geographical protections don't only apply to British good such as Cumberland sausage, Welsh wool, Stilton cheese, Melton Mowbray pork pies & Cornish pasties, they also apply to Champagne. Several billion gallons of Californian Champagne are waiting to be unleashed upon the unwitting Brexiters.
Milk. Would you believe but unpasteurised milk is widely available to buy fresh from the cow in many parts of Europe?
Monsanto are building up stock piles of American GM goods as we speak. GM? Is that General Motors?
The NHS. Aah, now then, one of the few things which is a jewel in the crown of British ownership. Let's sell it off to the lowest bidder......
And last, but by no means least, I note that this proposed trade deal is a US-UK trade deal and NOT a UK-US trade deal.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It'll be a sad day when we give up our sovreignty and are told what to do by the bureaucrats in Washington.
It was a sad day in 1973 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by the bureaucrats in Brussels.
very pithy answer there.... so lets if we can finally get a straight answer out of some of our brexiteer/leaver friends...
is the lowering of animal welfare and food saftey standards worth sacrificing for a uk/us trade deal..... yes or no?
Fabio you asked this question last year if the Uk public don’t but there produce it won’t make a difference will it it will be the public that decides
see... the reason i asked is that is does have real world consequences... especially in northern ireland...
if there are different health and safety standards then you will have to have all border checks on lifestock going north/south...... there is no way around that
you can't say "well this is destined for the UK/US and this is destined for the EU" because you would have to have two seperate structures and they would have to be kept seperate
but last yr when you asked this question Fabio yr argument was you won’t know if it’s from the US when you go to say McDonald’s kfc or other takeaways now it’s the Irish border
and both things would still be true.... if the UK were to lower standards then the likes of takeaways, mcdonalds, kfc or other would be allowed to get it from anywhere... they would also not be oblieged to tell you what standard of animal welfare or food safety they are using... (they might want to tell you if they want to separate themselves from others.. but not legally having to tell you)
and again... any foodstuffs agriculture or otherwise going north/south on the island of ireland would need to be checked, and thus you would need a hard border!... and lifestock leaving this country for the EU via dover would need to be checked, and so on and so on"
I’m not for lowering standards to be clear I just don’t think the British public would buy US meat if the standards were lowered maybe 20 yrs ago the British public are more savy now and tbh I dint think they could compete with the aldis and lidles now anyway just my humble opinion lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It'll be a sad day when we give up our sovreignty and are told what to do by the bureaucrats in Washington.
It was a sad day in 1973 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by the bureaucrats in Brussels.
very pithy answer there.... so lets if we can finally get a straight answer out of some of our brexiteer/leaver friends...
is the lowering of animal welfare and food saftey standards worth sacrificing for a uk/us trade deal..... yes or no?
Fabio you asked this question last year if the Uk public don’t but there produce it won’t make a difference will it it will be the public that decides
see... the reason i asked is that is does have real world consequences... especially in northern ireland...
if there are different health and safety standards then you will have to have all border checks on lifestock going north/south...... there is no way around that
you can't say "well this is destined for the UK/US and this is destined for the EU" because you would have to have two seperate structures and they would have to be kept seperate
but last yr when you asked this question Fabio yr argument was you won’t know if it’s from the US when you go to say McDonald’s kfc or other takeaways now it’s the Irish border
and both things would still be true.... if the UK were to lower standards then the likes of takeaways, mcdonalds, kfc or other would be allowed to get it from anywhere... they would also not be oblieged to tell you what standard of animal welfare or food safety they are using... (they might want to tell you if they want to separate themselves from others.. but not legally having to tell you)
and again... any foodstuffs agriculture or otherwise going north/south on the island of ireland would need to be checked, and thus you would need a hard border!... and lifestock leaving this country for the EU via dover would need to be checked, and so on and so on I’m not for lowering standards to be clear I just don’t think the British public would buy US meat if the standards were lowered maybe 20 yrs ago the British public are more savy now and tbh I dint think they could compete with the aldis and lidles now anyway just my humble opinion lol"
Well it's good to see one brexiter not prepared to lower his standards.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"it was a sad day in 1703 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by bureaucrats in London.
At least the bureaucrats who make the laws in London are democratically elected MP's and are held to account by the people through the ballot box and can be removed through the power of the ballot box.
The same cannot be said for the unelected bureaucrats who make the laws and run the EU like Juncker and Tusk. They are not elected by the people, they are not held to account by anyone and they can't be removed by the people through the ballot box either. "
What a lot of rubbish.
The policy in Brussels is determined by elected representatives.
The policy in London is determined by elected representatives.
The policy is implemented as regulations by the bureaucracy.
In Brussels and in London.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it was a sad day in 1703 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by bureaucrats in London.
At least the bureaucrats who make the laws in London are democratically elected MP's and are held to account by the people through the ballot box and can be removed through the power of the ballot box.
The same cannot be said for the unelected bureaucrats who make the laws and run the EU like Juncker and Tusk. They are not elected by the people, they are not held to account by anyone and they can't be removed by the people through the ballot box either.
What a lot of rubbish.
The policy in Brussels is determined by elected representatives.
The policy in London is determined by elected representatives.
The policy is implemented as regulations by the bureaucracy.
In Brussels and in London.
"
Rather than derail this thread I'll just refer you to the thread titled....
"Elections and elected ministers"
It all explained in detail there that the 5 Presidents of the EU are not directly elected by the people.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"it was a sad day in 1703 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by bureaucrats in London.
At least the bureaucrats who make the laws in London are democratically elected MP's and are held to account by the people through the ballot box and can be removed through the power of the ballot box.
The same cannot be said for the unelected bureaucrats who make the laws and run the EU like Juncker and Tusk. They are not elected by the people, they are not held to account by anyone and they can't be removed by the people through the ballot box either.
What a lot of rubbish.
The policy in Brussels is determined by elected representatives.
The policy in London is determined by elected representatives.
The policy is implemented as regulations by the bureaucracy.
In Brussels and in London.
Rather than derail this thread I'll just refer you to the thread titled....
"Elections and elected ministers"
It all explained in detail there that the 5 Presidents of the EU are not directly elected by the people.
"
Neither is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"It'll be a sad day when we give up our sovreignty and are told what to do by the bureaucrats in Washington.
It was a sad day in 1973 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by the bureaucrats in Brussels.
very pithy answer there.... so lets if we can finally get a straight answer out of some of our brexiteer/leaver friends...
is the lowering of animal welfare and food saftey standards worth sacrificing for a uk/us trade deal..... yes or no?
Fabio you asked this question last year if the Uk public don’t but there produce it won’t make a difference will it it will be the public that decides
see... the reason i asked is that is does have real world consequences... especially in northern ireland...
if there are different health and safety standards then you will have to have all border checks on lifestock going north/south...... there is no way around that
you can't say "well this is destined for the UK/US and this is destined for the EU" because you would have to have two seperate structures and they would have to be kept seperate
but last yr when you asked this question Fabio yr argument was you won’t know if it’s from the US when you go to say McDonald’s kfc or other takeaways now it’s the Irish border
and both things would still be true.... if the UK were to lower standards then the likes of takeaways, mcdonalds, kfc or other would be allowed to get it from anywhere... they would also not be oblieged to tell you what standard of animal welfare or food safety they are using... (they might want to tell you if they want to separate themselves from others.. but not legally having to tell you)
and again... any foodstuffs agriculture or otherwise going north/south on the island of ireland would need to be checked, and thus you would need a hard border!... and lifestock leaving this country for the EU via dover would need to be checked, and so on and so on I’m not for lowering standards to be clear I just don’t think the British public would buy US meat if the standards were lowered maybe 20 yrs ago the British public are more savy now and tbh I dint think they could compete with the aldis and lidles now anyway just my humble opinion lol"
If you are getting your meals from a good bank what will you rejectas not up to your standards?
Do you really know where your neat comes from in most restaurants?
You make an assumption, which currently is reasonable, about the quality of the food. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it was a sad day in 1703 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by bureaucrats in London.
At least the bureaucrats who make the laws in London are democratically elected MP's and are held to account by the people through the ballot box and can be removed through the power of the ballot box.
The same cannot be said for the unelected bureaucrats who make the laws and run the EU like Juncker and Tusk. They are not elected by the people, they are not held to account by anyone and they can't be removed by the people through the ballot box either.
What a lot of rubbish.
The policy in Brussels is determined by elected representatives.
The policy in London is determined by elected representatives.
The policy is implemented as regulations by the bureaucracy.
In Brussels and in London.
Rather than derail this thread I'll just refer you to the thread titled....
"Elections and elected ministers"
It all explained in detail there that the 5 Presidents of the EU are not directly elected by the people.
Neither is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom."
The Prime minister of the United kingdom is democratically elected by the People as an MP (member of Parliament). Theresa May was elected by her constituents in Maidenhead as an MP.
The 5 Presidents of the EU are not democratically elected by the people in any way, shape or form. Rather than derail this thread it's better discussed on the 'Elections and elected ministers' thread as that is a dedicated thread to this particular topic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"it was a sad day in 1703 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by bureaucrats in London.
At least the bureaucrats who make the laws in London are democratically elected MP's and are held to account by the people through the ballot box and can be removed through the power of the ballot box.
The same cannot be said for the unelected bureaucrats who make the laws and run the EU like Juncker and Tusk. They are not elected by the people, they are not held to account by anyone and they can't be removed by the people through the ballot box either.
What a lot of rubbish.
The policy in Brussels is determined by elected representatives.
The policy in London is determined by elected representatives.
The policy is implemented as regulations by the bureaucracy.
In Brussels and in London.
Rather than derail this thread I'll just refer you to the thread titled....
"Elections and elected ministers"
It all explained in detail there that the 5 Presidents of the EU are not directly elected by the people.
Neither is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
The Prime minister of the United kingdom is democratically elected by the People as an MP (member of Parliament). Theresa May was elected by her constituents in Maidenhead as an MP.
The 5 Presidents of the EU are not democratically elected by the people in any way, shape or form. Rather than derail this thread it's better discussed on the 'Elections and elected ministers' thread as that is a dedicated thread to this particular topic. "
Nah.
The Prime Minister is not elected directly by anybody to do the job of Prime Minister. Neither is any minister. Their electoral mandate runs to representing their constituents interests in Parliament.
There is no requirement for the Prime Minister to be elected. It is a relatively modern convention. In the past their have been many peers who have filled that role.
I also have no problem with the various parts of the EU election their own leaders in the same way that political parties elect theirs. It's delegated authority. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
The Prime minister of the United kingdom is democratically elected by the People as an MP (member of Parliament). "
The Prime Minister is elected by 650 voters.
When you cast your vote, it is is a candidate in your constituency.
That person might get elected because 35% voted for her or him.
65% count for nothing in the election of a Prime Minister after that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it was a sad day in 1703 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by bureaucrats in London.
At least the bureaucrats who make the laws in London are democratically elected MP's and are held to account by the people through the ballot box and can be removed through the power of the ballot box.
The same cannot be said for the unelected bureaucrats who make the laws and run the EU like Juncker and Tusk. They are not elected by the people, they are not held to account by anyone and they can't be removed by the people through the ballot box either.
What a lot of rubbish.
The policy in Brussels is determined by elected representatives.
The policy in London is determined by elected representatives.
The policy is implemented as regulations by the bureaucracy.
In Brussels and in London.
Rather than derail this thread I'll just refer you to the thread titled....
"Elections and elected ministers"
It all explained in detail there that the 5 Presidents of the EU are not directly elected by the people.
Neither is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
The Prime minister of the United kingdom is democratically elected by the People as an MP (member of Parliament). Theresa May was elected by her constituents in Maidenhead as an MP.
The 5 Presidents of the EU are not democratically elected by the people in any way, shape or form. Rather than derail this thread it's better discussed on the 'Elections and elected ministers' thread as that is a dedicated thread to this particular topic.
Nah.
The Prime Minister is not elected directly by anybody to do the job of Prime Minister. Neither is any minister. Their electoral mandate runs to representing their constituents interests in Parliament.
There is no requirement for the Prime Minister to be elected. It is a relatively modern convention. In the past their have been many peers who have filled that role.
I also have no problem with the various parts of the EU election their own leaders in the same way that political parties elect theirs. It's delegated authority."
Nah.
The Prime minister of the UK is democratically elected by the people first as an MP. You can't be Prime minister in the UK unless you become an MP first.
I don't care what happened in the past, fucking cave men may have voted who would be leader of their tribe sitting around a camp fire in the prehistoric age, it's completely irrelevant. We're talking about the here and now. The system here and now means the Prime minister must first be democratically elected by the people as an MP. You can't be Prime minister in the UK unless you are elected by the people first as an MP. There is also democratic mechanism for the people to remove the prime minister as an MP at the next election.
The 5 EU Presidents are not democratically elected by the people in any way, shape or form. They're not required to be MEP's, Juncker and Tusk were not ever elected MEP's by the people before they became President's, that should be a basic minimum requirement before being allowed the role of President. The people also have no democratic mechanism to remove any of the 5 EU Presidents either.
Again you keep derailing this thread with this as it's not the topic of the thread. There is a dedicated thread to this topic currently on the forum titled "Elections and elected minister's", I suggest you jog on there if you want to discuss it further.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *naqMan
over a year ago
Ayrshire |
"It'll be a sad day when we give up our sovreignty and are told what to do by the bureaucrats in Washington.
It was a sad day in 1973 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by the bureaucrats in Brussels.
Dont sorry from april onwards we will be told what to do eat etc by the Yanks .
Have you seen some of the news stories in the US? Theirs stories of toxic algi in Miami, Water so poluted in California that fish can't survive. The plants and fish that were tested show levels of radiation 100x higher than the legally accepted limit of 0.3 millisievert per year the US measure this in becquerels with their new acceptable limit of 400bq/1kg. Just to put that kind of in perspective here 0.3 millisievert is equal to almost 5bq/1kg
That's insane for us to back a US/UK FTA unless we can keep our production and enviromental standards as is which they will never agree. If i remember right Trump tried to force GM meat Beef and Chicken i think on to the British market a while back but it didn't meet our qaulity and standards so couldn't be sold here.
I wonder what you would do if you went on holiday to the USA for a week or 2? Would you starve yourself living in fear and refuse to eat anything while you were over there, trotting out this garbage in every supermarket or restaurant you entered? "
Wtf? Really! I probably wouldn't go to the areas i mentioned your logic is insanely backwards mate. If you went to Japan would you go get some sushi from the towns surrounding Fukushima? Or happily fill your face spouting project fear?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It'll be a sad day when we give up our sovreignty and are told what to do by the bureaucrats in Washington.
It was a sad day in 1973 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by the bureaucrats in Brussels.
Dont sorry from april onwards we will be told what to do eat etc by the Yanks .
Have you seen some of the news stories in the US? Theirs stories of toxic algi in Miami, Water so poluted in California that fish can't survive. The plants and fish that were tested show levels of radiation 100x higher than the legally accepted limit of 0.3 millisievert per year the US measure this in becquerels with their new acceptable limit of 400bq/1kg. Just to put that kind of in perspective here 0.3 millisievert is equal to almost 5bq/1kg
That's insane for us to back a US/UK FTA unless we can keep our production and enviromental standards as is which they will never agree. If i remember right Trump tried to force GM meat Beef and Chicken i think on to the British market a while back but it didn't meet our qaulity and standards so couldn't be sold here.
I wonder what you would do if you went on holiday to the USA for a week or 2? Would you starve yourself living in fear and refuse to eat anything while you were over there, trotting out this garbage in every supermarket or restaurant you entered?
Wtf? Really! I probably wouldn't go to the areas i mentioned your logic is insanely backwards mate. If you went to Japan would you go get some sushi from the towns surrounding Fukushima? Or happily fill your face spouting project fear?
"
I imagine the towns surrounding Fukishima ship in sushi from other areas of Japan that are safe. That seems like a sensible thing to do, wouldn't you agree?
Similarly In the USA, if areas of water are polluted then they'd ship in fish from other areas of the USA that are safe.
Keep living your life in fear though, I prefer not to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
I imagine the towns surrounding Fukishima ship in sushi from other areas of Japan that are safe. That seems like a sensible thing to do, wouldn't you agree?
Similarly In the USA, if areas of water are polluted then they'd ship in fish from other areas of the USA that are safe.
Keep living your life in fear though, I prefer not to. "
Lots of countries, lots of blocs, including the EU, prohibited imports from the Fukushima prefecture.
Most have started to lift the prohibitions, including the EU.
Fukushima is one of the venues for the 2020 Olympics.
Now, do you think it is safe?
Would you rather base your opinion on same random person on the internet, or the judgement of institutions like the EU, the Hong Kong government, the Korea government or what?
It's true it is still pissing caesium into the ocean.
But the radiation on the land isn't going to get any worse.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"it was a sad day in 1703 when we gave up our sovereignty and are now told what to do by bureaucrats in London.
At least the bureaucrats who make the laws in London are democratically elected MP's and are held to account by the people through the ballot box and can be removed through the power of the ballot box.
The same cannot be said for the unelected bureaucrats who make the laws and run the EU like Juncker and Tusk. They are not elected by the people, they are not held to account by anyone and they can't be removed by the people through the ballot box either.
What a lot of rubbish.
The policy in Brussels is determined by elected representatives.
The policy in London is determined by elected representatives.
The policy is implemented as regulations by the bureaucracy.
In Brussels and in London.
Rather than derail this thread I'll just refer you to the thread titled....
"Elections and elected ministers"
It all explained in detail there that the 5 Presidents of the EU are not directly elected by the people.
Neither is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
The Prime minister of the United kingdom is democratically elected by the People as an MP (member of Parliament). Theresa May was elected by her constituents in Maidenhead as an MP.
The 5 Presidents of the EU are not democratically elected by the people in any way, shape or form. Rather than derail this thread it's better discussed on the 'Elections and elected ministers' thread as that is a dedicated thread to this particular topic.
Nah.
The Prime Minister is not elected directly by anybody to do the job of Prime Minister. Neither is any minister. Their electoral mandate runs to representing their constituents interests in Parliament.
There is no requirement for the Prime Minister to be elected. It is a relatively modern convention. In the past their have been many peers who have filled that role.
I also have no problem with the various parts of the EU election their own leaders in the same way that political parties elect theirs. It's delegated authority.
Nah.
The Prime minister of the UK is democratically elected by the people first as an MP. You can't be Prime minister in the UK unless you become an MP first.
I don't care what happened in the past, fucking cave men may have voted who would be leader of their tribe sitting around a camp fire in the prehistoric age, it's completely irrelevant. We're talking about the here and now. The system here and now means the Prime minister must first be democratically elected by the people as an MP. You can't be Prime minister in the UK unless you are elected by the people first as an MP. There is also democratic mechanism for the people to remove the prime minister as an MP at the next election.
The 5 EU Presidents are not democratically elected by the people in any way, shape or form. They're not required to be MEP's, Juncker and Tusk were not ever elected MEP's by the people before they became President's, that should be a basic minimum requirement before being allowed the role of President. The people also have no democratic mechanism to remove any of the 5 EU Presidents either.
Again you keep derailing this thread with this as it's not the topic of the thread. There is a dedicated thread to this topic currently on the forum titled "Elections and elected minister's", I suggest you jog on there if you want to discuss it further.
"
You seem to be making pronouncements about half understood matters. Again.
The President of the European Parliament is an elected MEP which makes your assertion untrue regardless.
The President of the European Central Bank is a central bank governor. They are not elected anywhere in the world. They are appointed and approved based on their experience and knowledge of banking.
The Council of the EU is where national ministers discuss the implied ration of legislation.
The President acts as the chairman of these meetings and sets the agenda. The Presidency rotates every six months. Really rather fair for this sort of position. Not sure why an election would be appropriate.
The Council of Ministers represents national governments. All national governments are elected. All ministers are appointed to this council as they are to national cabinets. A minister in the UK does not have to be elected. They can be peers. In the USA by way of contrast they can be anybody at all. The President of the Council is elected by the members of the council. The mandate is given by the votes of national governments as this is who this group represents.
The European Commission represents the EU as an entity. The President of the EU is nominated by agreement of the Council of Ministers and voted in by the European Parliament. It is a position that comes under double scrutiny. I personally don't like the current incumbent, but that goes for most UK Prime Ministers too.
So, the European parliament represents constituents and all elections are direct.
The ECB is a central bank and is not supposed to be a democratic institution.
The European council is a rotating chairmanship.
The Council of Ministers represents national governments and is elected by them.
The European Commission is the bureaucracy of the EU as a supranational organisation and it's leader is selected by national governments and elected representatives.
All seems reasonable to me.
Which bit do you not like? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Judging by Mays bargaining skills with the EU, I'm not holding much hope of any good trade deals with anyone... They will all know that the UK gov is desperate to sign up to any trade deals as quickly as possible. Deals that usually take years to complete... "
I haven't much faith in parliament to decline deals like these  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Would it be cost effective to ship beef and pork from the US to the UK?"
since centy is trying to get round the real issue at hand and derail the thread yet again.... lets get round to answering the question...
the answer to the actual question posed is that if it is cheaper to then produce the food using the other techniques not used in other places (for example lowering food standards, or animal welfare standards) then yes it could be cheaper for them to produce food and export it than here (which ironically if why tariffs are placed on produces as per WTO rules... its there to actually protect domestic products and produce at the most basic level)
which is why when centys favourite economists and his tory taliban friends suggest basically going to zero tariffs in a no deal brexit situation... it would be that the UK could be, both legally and effectively, be used as a dumping ground for their products whilst also driving home grown business to the wall.....
see.... thats why they talk about the decimation of uk agriculture and manufacturing being the consecquence of the brexit no deal utopia...
its also the one thing they never ever acknowledge or talk about... even though their own economists do!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Would it be cost effective to ship beef and pork from the US to the UK?
since centy is trying to get round the real issue at hand and derail the thread yet again.... lets get round to answering the question...
the answer to the actual question posed is that if it is cheaper to then produce the food using the other techniques not used in other places (for example lowering food standards, or animal welfare standards) then yes it could be cheaper for them to produce food and export it than here (which ironically if why tariffs are placed on produces as per WTO rules... its there to actually protect domestic products and produce at the most basic level)
which is why when centys favourite economists and his tory taliban friends suggest basically going to zero tariffs in a no deal brexit situation... it would be that the UK could be, both legally and effectively, be used as a dumping ground for their products whilst also driving home grown business to the wall.....
see.... thats why they talk about the decimation of uk agriculture and manufacturing being the consecquence of the brexit no deal utopia...
its also the one thing they never ever acknowledge or talk about... even though their own economists do! "
The ferry from Ireland to the UK takes approx 4 hours depending on which route you take, this ain't to bad for our livestock as the UK is one of our biggest markets but how long and how much would it cost to ship live cattle from the states to the UK |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"
The ferry from Ireland to the UK takes approx 4 hours depending on which route you take, this ain't to bad for our livestock as the UK is one of our biggest markets but how long and how much would it cost to ship live cattle from the states to the UK"
there are two different circumstances you are then talking about.... one of them is live animal transporting....
the other is mass produced meat which would be frozen.... for example chicken, pork and beef products which would use meat not currently allowed in the human food chain as per EU rules..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
