Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Another Brexy Bonus!

The EU has leapt ahead of the UK in the pursuit of free trade deals with Australia and New Zealand.

So it’s just like the Japanese one; a green light to begin talks rather than something concrete. Let’s see how long it takes for them to actually do that. Is that hormone laced Australian beef going to be a stumbling block for example.

A green light is a lot more concrete than the UK has got right now

Plus we will need to renegotiate all the deals we're in at the moment thanks to EU membership, which we'll fall out of next March 29th.

If people are genuinely interested in the workings of the EU, then I would recommend you read the farming sections of your local/regional newspaper. Assuming of course they have one.

Mine does, and over the last few months, I've learned about all sorts of interesting stuff. The Brazil trade deal with the EU being a prime example. Yeah, Brazil might have dodgy milk, but better to stick with the blind eye of the 'good' EU than get chlorinated chicken? Right?

Herbicides and pesticides is another conflict between the EU and the UK.

The UK wants an evidence based approach to banning certain pesticides and herbicides which are bad for the environment, human consumption etc etc

So if X is shown to be harmful, the UK wants it banned, and who can argue against that? Not me.

The EU on the other hand, has flipped it: guilty until proven innocent, which goes against the scientific method, and a whole host of herbicides and pesticides are looking at being banned, regardless of what farmers want or the scientists say.

It's safety first, but I suspect if this is ever made a big deal, it will be used as a stick to bash the UK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Another Brexy Bonus!

The EU has leapt ahead of the UK in the pursuit of free trade deals with Australia and New Zealand.

Well, I hope they've got 8 years to spare, and the capacity to be flexible when one man and his dog in Latvia wields their veto.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herbicides and pesticides is another conflict between the EU and the UK.

The UK wants an evidence based approach to banning certain pesticides and herbicides which are bad for the environment, human consumption etc etc

So if X is shown to be harmful, the UK wants it banned, and who can argue against that? Not me.

The EU on the other hand, has flipped it: guilty until proven innocent, which goes against the scientific method, and a whole host of herbicides and pesticides are looking at being banned, regardless of what farmers want or the scientists say.

It's safety first, but I suspect if this is ever made a big deal, it will be used as a stick to bash the UK.

The EU's approach is the one that makes the most sense for a very simple reason. Money.
It costs a lot of money to scientifically determine if harm is caused by pesticides and herbicides, not to mention that such harm may only become apparent many years after exposure.

Regulatory services are not funded to adequately test every new pesticide and herbicide that is developed. So, instead the manufacturers can fund the research to prove that the risk of harm is within acceptable limits.

Also, the EU's approach does not violate the scientific method at all. Assuming that pesticides and herbicides could be extremely harmful and should be tested extensively before being allowed to be used is a reasonable position to start from.

If you go with the opposite approach then you can end up with repeats of instances like mass use of DDT.

DINLT: I think you're alright mate, but you've really not understood why the EU requires pesticides and herbicides to be proven to not be harmful before they are cleared.

This is known as the Precautionary Principle and quite the opposite of how you've characterised it, "scientists", if we can speak about a diverse group of people so generally, would overall be pretty in favour of the precautionary principle when it comes to substances which are going to reduced freely into the environment. This is common sense: if something enters the food chain or environment and it is harmful, it is too late to prevent harm. We've had children born with birth defects, people poisoned or dramatically increasing their risk of cancer, or most recently, massive bee and insect die offs which threaten, and I am not being hyperbolic, human civilization as we know it. I would suggest that you don't know much about environmental science if you think the Precautionary Principle is an EU only thing or a stupid idea.

 Da Boss wrote:
DINLT: I think you're alright mate, but you've really not understood why the EU requires pesticides and herbicides to be proven to not be harmful before they are cleared.

This is known as the Precautionary Principle and quite the opposite of how you've characterised it, "scientists", if we can speak about a diverse group of people so generally, would overall be pretty in favour of the precautionary principle when it comes to substances which are going to reduced freely into the environment. This is common sense: if something enters the food chain or environment and it is harmful, it is too late to prevent harm. We've had children born with birth defects, people poisoned or dramatically increasing their risk of cancer, or most recently, massive bee and insect die offs which threaten, and I am not being hyperbolic, human civilization as we know it. I would suggest that you don't know much about environmental science if you think the Precautionary Principle is an EU only thing or a stupid idea.

When it comes to food safety, nobody on this site, be they Remain, be they Brexit, wants dodgy food.

I think we're all agreed on that.

Is dodgy chicken a possibility with a deal with the USA? Possibly.

But from what I've been reading from the EU/Brazil trade talks, there is a lot there to be concerned about with regards to food standards in Brazil.

I'm reluctant to trust any side on this. Ordinary people at the bottom like us tend to be an after thought in billion dollar trade deals.

Don't fall into the trap of UK = bad EU = good.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And another thing.

In trumpeting the fact that the EU has stolen a march on the UK with regard to Australia and New Zealand, have Remainers not committed the supreme irony and made the case for Brexit?

If Australia (30 million people) and New Zealand (4 million people) thousands of miles away on the other side of the world can get a win win trade deal

then why not Britain (65 million people) and on the EU's doorstep and the world's 5th largest economy?

The 500 million EU citizens should be able to blow away the 4 million New Zealanders when it comes to negotiating clout, right?

But that's not what Juncker is saying...

Remainers, I accept your positive case for Brexit


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herbicides and pesticides is another conflict between the EU and the UK.

The UK wants an evidence based approach to banning certain pesticides and herbicides which are bad for the environment, human consumption etc etc

So if X is shown to be harmful, the UK wants it banned, and who can argue against that? Not me.

The EU on the other hand, has flipped it: guilty until proven innocent, which goes against the scientific method, and a whole host of herbicides and pesticides are looking at being banned, regardless of what farmers want or the scientists say.

It's safety first, but I suspect if this is ever made a big deal, it will be used as a stick to bash the UK.

The EU's approach is the one that makes the most sense for a very simple reason. Money.
It costs a lot of money to scientifically determine if harm is caused by pesticides and herbicides, not to mention that such harm may only become apparent many years after exposure.

Regulatory services are not funded to adequately test every new pesticide and herbicide that is developed. So, instead the manufacturers can fund the research to prove that the risk of harm is within acceptable limits.

Also, the EU's approach does not violate the scientific method at all. Assuming that pesticides and herbicides could be extremely harmful and should be tested extensively before being allowed to be used is a reasonable position to start from.

If you go with the opposite approach then you can end up with repeats of instances like mass use of DDT.

Global warming is making some pests and fungi difficult to eradicate, and new threats are moving north. The EU may be hard pressed to fight off lobbying from the farming industry if a new 'miracle' pesticide hits the market.

Because a good deal to Australia is a bad deal to us. They sell stuff, we sell services.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus if you make everything legal until it's banned you end up with unscrupulous companies changing the composition of banned stuff so it's "totally not the same thing" and not banned anymore. Only allowing it when proven safe is a lot safer.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Global warming is making some pests and fungi difficult to eradicate, and new threats are moving north. The EU may be hard pressed to fight off lobbying from the farming industry if a new 'miracle' pesticide hits the market.

The solution to global warming is not to introduce untested chemicals into the environment.

The solution is to tackle global warming.

You know all the Austrialian car manufacturers are closing down or have already closed down their home based plants? Even Holden. Australia seems to be turning into an importer of cars. We make cars. Quite a lot actually. More than we did in our supposed 1970s heyday. Take Holdens sister company Vauxhall for example.

We will be making a lot fewer cars once we've cut ourselves off from the EU wide supply chain of car parts.

As well, Malaysia and Japan also make cars and they are a lot closer to Australia. So is the USA. India too.

Actually, when you look at it, the UK is just about the farthest away country in the world from Australia.

We're a tiny bit closer than the EU, but we don't have any deep water ports to tranship large cargoes, because all our stuff goes through Rotterdam.

Oh well!,

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We will be making a lot fewer cars once we've cut ourselves off from the EU wide supply chain of car parts.

As well, Malaysia and Japan also make cars and they are a lot closer to Australia. So is the USA. India too.

Actually, when you look at it, the UK is just about the farthest away country in the world from Australia.

We're a tiny bit closer than the EU, but we don't have any deep water ports to tranship large cargoes, because all our stuff goes through Rotterdam.

Oh well!,

Oh yeah, the Rotterdam effect.

We should have started work on a deep water port by now. That I will give you. But distance never stopped the Japanese from getting their cars out there.

The Japanese built a load of car factories in the UK because it is a gateway to the EU market.

Not for much longer...

Oh well.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Just to note that I thought the Royal Wedding was a lovely thing to happen, despite my total disinterest in watching it. [LGT and all. Much more interesting]

Interesting that you have strong opinions on something you were totally disinterested in. Why is that?

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
... we want to fix it with something that's almost certainly worse and more expensive because 'Muh Principles',

That sounds very similar to something else that happened recently.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
...along with vague insinuations of death threats about 'Hanging' or 'Deporting', people who are effectively lifelong civil servants.'

Even some of the posts in this thread about it have bordered on the offensive/disgusting side of things.

Not noticed anything that like that on here, which posts are you talking about? I may have missed it, I occasionally skip over some things.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
DINLT: I think you're alright mate, but you've really not understood why the EU requires pesticides and herbicides to be proven to not be harmful before they are cleared.

This is known as the Precautionary Principle and quite the opposite of how you've characterised it, "scientists", if we can speak about a diverse group of people so generally, would overall be pretty in favour of the precautionary principle when it comes to substances which are going to reduced freely into the environment. This is common sense: if something enters the food chain or environment and it is harmful, it is too late to prevent harm. We've had children born with birth defects, people poisoned or dramatically increasing their risk of cancer, or most recently, massive bee and insect die offs which threaten, and I am not being hyperbolic, human civilization as we know it. I would suggest that you don't know much about environmental science if you think the Precautionary Principle is an EU only thing or a stupid idea.

When it comes to food safety, nobody on this site, be they Remain, be they Brexit, wants dodgy food.

I think we're all agreed on that.

Is dodgy chicken a possibility with a deal with the USA? Possibly.

But from what I've been reading from the EU/Brazil trade talks, there is a lot there to be concerned about with regards to food standards in Brazil.

We've been through this before.

Brazilian food standards are meaningless because anything Brazil exports to the EU will be subject to EU food standards. Just like South African or Australian meats and, conversely, EU exports to the US being subject to US rules.

Back to agrochemicals, the allowed until proven otherwise is taken straight from the US book, which in turn is written by big (agro)pharma. I see their lobbying is already yielding good results.

 r_squared wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Just to note that I thought the Royal Wedding was a lovely thing to happen, despite my total disinterest in watching it. [LGT and all. Much more interesting]

Interesting that you have strong opinions on something you were totally disinterested in. Why is that?

I have strong views on the UK Government, too, but am excessively disinterested in what T.May has for breakfast or what trousers my local MP is wearing. Just because I am passionate about something doesn't mean every single thing they do I feel compelled to watch rather than participatingin a lifelong hobby.
Do I want a royal family? 110%
Do I care what dress one of them wore to a wedding once? ... No, not really. Would rather watch SEO Winters review the new Harlequin Codex.

You know, reading this, I’m coming around to the idea of the Norwegian model for brexit. I wasn’t keen on it at first but that was because I believed in the whole government by fax myth. It’s far from perfect, but I think it’s the compromise that could keep the most people happy. The only issue I can see is the immigration one. But...they do have a brake system in place. A system similar to the one which the EU supposedly gave us in those “negotiations” Cameron went into. Except this one wouldn’t require us to ask the others to use it (which they never would have btw.)

The Norway model offers something of a compromise that probably would please the majority of Leavers and Remainers.

Hard Brexiteers won't like it, of course.

The difficulty is that May ruled it out when she laid down her "red lines". Until that situation changes, we are stuck with the alternatives of Hard Brexit, and magical thinking on the customs problem.

I saw a trailer for a 3 part documentary on the inner workings of the EU. I think it starts tonight at 10pm, missed the channel.

I'd be happy with the Norway model, which means the most vocal brexiteers won't be.

Considering several voices in the Brexit camp called the Norway model in terms of being a "vassal state" to the EU....


Gardiner: Norway model for UK's future EU relations
Adopting a Norway model for Brexit "would be to become a vassal state" and would prevent the UK from achieving the reasons why people voted to leave the EU, says Barry Gardiner.
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-40700913/gardiner-norway-model-for-uk-s-future-eu-relations

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Norway model offers something of a compromise that probably would please the majority of Leavers and Remainers.

I doubt it would unfortunately. At least not if proposed. The right wing papers will paint it as some sort of betrail, not leaving the EU at all etc. Your afraid leave voter in the street will read no more and be against it no matter what the facts or truth of the matter.

https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/998805435300925442

A teenager with bone cancer and a prosthetic leg has been told she's no longer eligible for her mobility car after she was told she's no longer disabled enough. In other news, the boss of Motability has just been criticised for his £1.7 million salary.

report through the link.

jouso wrote:
Considering several voices in the Brexit camp called the Norway model in terms of being a "vassal state" to the EU....


Gardiner: Norway model for UK's future EU relations
Adopting a Norway model for Brexit "would be to become a vassal state" and would prevent the UK from achieving the reasons why people voted to leave the EU, says Barry Gardiner.
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-40700913/gardiner-norway-model-for-uk-s-future-eu-relations

Yet I'm sure Farage commented a few times that the Norway model wasn't bad. At least indirectly.

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
DINLT: I think you're alright mate, but you've really not understood why the EU requires pesticides and herbicides to be proven to not be harmful before they are cleared.

This is known as the Precautionary Principle and quite the opposite of how you've characterised it, "scientists", if we can speak about a diverse group of people so generally, would overall be pretty in favour of the precautionary principle when it comes to substances which are going to reduced freely into the environment. This is common sense: if something enters the food chain or environment and it is harmful, it is too late to prevent harm. We've had children born with birth defects, people poisoned or dramatically increasing their risk of cancer, or most recently, massive bee and insect die offs which threaten, and I am not being hyperbolic, human civilization as we know it. I would suggest that you don't know much about environmental science if you think the Precautionary Principle is an EU only thing or a stupid idea.

When it comes to food safety, nobody on this site, be they Remain, be they Brexit, wants dodgy food.

I think we're all agreed on that.

Is dodgy chicken a possibility with a deal with the USA? Possibly.

But from what I've been reading from the EU/Brazil trade talks, there is a lot there to be concerned about with regards to food standards in Brazil.

We've been through this before.

Brazilian food standards are meaningless because anything Brazil exports to the EU will be subject to EU food standards. Just like South African or Australian meats and, conversely, EU exports to the US being subject to US rules.

Back to agrochemicals, the allowed until proven otherwise is taken straight from the US book, which in turn is written by big (agro)pharma. I see their lobbying is already yielding good results.

The point I'm making is that the EU is turning a blind eye. You can have the best food standards in the known galaxy, but if nobody enforces them, then well...

And you're forgetting that EU food standards didn't stop a whole bunch of horse meat forming from the EU to the UK. That was pre-Brexit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:
I saw a trailer for a 3 part documentary on the inner workings of the EU. I think it starts tonight at 10pm, missed the channel.

I'd be happy with the Norway model, which means the most vocal brexiteers won't be.

I'm not actually sure that Norway are all too keen on the UK in EFTA. The UK might imbalance it.


But we were a founding member, so we have a claim of right I suppose


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Global warming is making some pests and fungi difficult to eradicate, and new threats are moving north. The EU may be hard pressed to fight off lobbying from the farming industry if a new 'miracle' pesticide hits the market.

The solution to global warming is not to introduce untested chemicals into the environment.

The solution is to tackle global warming.

Long term, yeah, I agree, but it'll take time and a global effort to turn that ship around.

Short term? The political pressure to act may be to great, hence 'miracle' products on the market.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
DINLT: I think you're alright mate, but you've really not understood why the EU requires pesticides and herbicides to be proven to not be harmful before they are cleared.

This is known as the Precautionary Principle and quite the opposite of how you've characterised it, "scientists", if we can speak about a diverse group of people so generally, would overall be pretty in favour of the precautionary principle when it comes to substances which are going to reduced freely into the environment. This is common sense: if something enters the food chain or environment and it is harmful, it is too late to prevent harm. We've had children born with birth defects, people poisoned or dramatically increasing their risk of cancer, or most recently, massive bee and insect die offs which threaten, and I am not being hyperbolic, human civilization as we know it. I would suggest that you don't know much about environmental science if you think the Precautionary Principle is an EU only thing or a stupid idea.

When it comes to food safety, nobody on this site, be they Remain, be they Brexit, wants dodgy food.

I think we're all agreed on that.

Is dodgy chicken a possibility with a deal with the USA? Possibly.

But from what I've been reading from the EU/Brazil trade talks, there is a lot there to be concerned about with regards to food standards in Brazil.

We've been through this before.

Brazilian food standards are meaningless because anything Brazil exports to the EU will be subject to EU food standards. Just like South African or Australian meats and, conversely, EU exports to the US being subject to US rules.

Back to agrochemicals, the allowed until proven otherwise is taken straight from the US book, which in turn is written by big (agro)pharma. I see their lobbying is already yielding good results.

The point I'm making is that the EU is turning a blind eye. You can have the best food standards in the known galaxy, but if nobody enforces them, then well...

And you're forgetting that EU food standards didn't stop a whole bunch of horse meat forming from the EU to the UK. That was pre-Brexit.

And the perpretators were caught and jailed. Enforcement is never a 100% measure, but it includes spot checks, sample checks, pre-clearing of manufacturing sites, etc. Moving meat around the world is quite a challenge. And in any case it was a mislabelling case, not a food safety one. The horsemeat was perfectly safe to eat, if it'd been labelled as such.

Compare that to trying to change the laws on the books to make it legal to bring substandard food to the UK.

In any case, if anyone's worried about eating Brazilian meat it is required to put country of origin on all meat products so you can easily pass just by looking at the label.

The British public has always had a love affair with the horse: Black Beauty, Shergar, Red Rum, Desert Orchid. Legendary names in British culture.

Add to that the great horse racing tradition in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and it's clear to see that British and Irish people don't take too kindly to our four legged friends being eaten

That was why the horse meat scandal was a big deal. Such behaviour is frowned upon.

In reply to Jouso, I think we're all better off cutting back on meat anyway. Better for our health and better for the planet.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The British public has always had a love affair with the horse: Black Beauty, Shergar, Red Rum, Desert Orchid. Legendary names in British culture.

Add to that the great horse racing tradition in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and it's clear to see that British and Irish people don't take too kindly to our four legged friends being eaten

That was why the horse meat scandal was a big deal. Such behaviour is frowned upon.

I'll take foal meat rather than beef any time. It ain't cheap though.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
it's clear to see that British and Irish people don't take too kindly to our four legged friends being eaten

Don't try to speak for everyone, I don't have an issue with horsemeat. As pointed out, it was safe to eat and sold in other countries, the issue wasn't with safety standards but with packaging.

Isn’t horse meat basically venison and thus better for you than beef?

And, to my earlier point, I really think EFTA is the way to go. I completely understand Norway’s reservations about us joining though. Which is why we should have started talking to them. I really think now that this is the way to square the circle. Remainers get the access to the single market they want, whilst leavers get the ‘ever closer union’ weight off their shoulders and a more flexible approach to the rules. We also get control of the fisheries back. It’s not perfect but it’s the next best thing.

 Riquende wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
it's clear to see that British and Irish people don't take too kindly to our four legged friends being eaten

Don't try to speak for everyone, I don't have an issue with horsemeat. As pointed out, it was safe to eat and sold in other countries, the issue wasn't with safety standards but with packaging.

This is Britain. We cheer on horses at the Grand National. We don't stick them on our plates for Sunday lunch.


Is nothing sacred anymore?