EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[najaB]

...maybe the Canada's and Australia's of the world, simply aren't big enough (in population, not size) to cover any Brexit losses.

Canada's trade with the US is $750B out of £1T, where trade with the UK is £25B (2%). So they'd miss us, but not that much. In the case of Australia, we are $29B out of $670B (4%) - still not big in the grand scheme of things but maybe they'd miss us for little longer.

 

[Howardh]

Canada's trade with the US is $750B out of £1T, where trade with the UK is £25B (2%). So they'd miss us, but not that much. In the case of Australia, we are $29B out of $670B (4%) - still not big in the grand scheme of things but maybe they'd miss us for little longer.

It is an argument that it is better to trade with a small population but high incomes than a large population but with little income. Question - what popluation of India have the same disposable income as the average for Australia and Canada? Let's face it, they aren't ALL poor; but for even the wealthy what can they buy form the UK that they can't from Korea, japan, China and even their own country?

 

[northwichcat]

^ Remember as well as India having rich and poor that both Australia and Canada have indigenous populations who on average earn a lot less than the descendents of Europeans, which brings down the average earnings of the country overall.

 

[furnessvale]

It is an argument that it is better to trade with a small population but high incomes than a large population but with little income. Question - what popluation of India have the same disposable income as the average for Australia and Canada? Let's face it, they aren't ALL poor; but for even the wealthy what can they buy form the UK that they can't from Korea, japan, China and even their own country?

The same argument can be applied to many countries.
Why do people in the UK need to buy Mercs and BMWs when Jags are made here. Please don't cloud the issue by saying Jags are rubbish, perhaps people from India could feel the same about whatever product they could buy from the UK instead of Korea etc.

 

[Howardh]

The same argument can be applied to many countries.
Why do people in the UK need to buy Mercs and BMWs when Jags are made here. Please don't cloud the issue by saying Jags are rubbish, perhaps people from India could feel the same about whatever product they could buy from the UK instead of Korea etc.

Not quite sure the point you are trying to make? If someone is loaded then they will go for quality/service/reliability etc over cost - so if the UK made the most expensive car in the world someone would buy it. But that market would be so limited, what of the rest? If it comes down to price, several factors would be at work considering cars - fully automated plant reducing labour costs (but not good for jobs post-Brexit) and the cost of importing base materials should there be tarriffs to name but two.
What else do we manufacture which we can genuinely compete on price and quality?

 

[northwichcat]

The same argument can be applied to many countries.
Why do people in the UK need to buy Mercs and BMWs when Jags are made here. Please don't cloud the issue by saying Jags are rubbish, perhaps people from India could feel the same about whatever product they could buy from the UK instead of Korea etc.

People want choice and they don't always realise where things are made or who makes them e.g. how many people know that MINIs are now manufactured by BMW in Oxfordshire?

Mercedes are very unique on the car market. What other car manufacturers produces a car which gets purchased by well off people in developed countries and then can be exported to a developing country when it's no longer needed in a developed country, where it can keep going on poorly maintained roads for many years? Most luxury cars are write offs once the show offs in developed countries have had enough of their toy.

 

[furnessvale]

People want choice and they don't always realise where things are made or who makes them e.g. how many people know that MINIs are now manufactured by BMW in Oxfordshire?

Mercedes are very unique on the car market. What other car manufacturers produces a car which gets purchased by well off people in developed countries and then can be exported to a developing country when it's no longer needed in a developed country, where it can keep going on poorly maintained roads for many years? Most luxury cars are write offs once the show offs in developed countries have had enough of their toy.

As I was trying to avoid, but obviously failed, people have picked up on the specifics of my post rather than the generality of its meaning.

 

[fowler9]

As I was trying to avoid, but obviously failed, people have picked up on the specifics of my post rather than the generality of its meaning.

The same argument can be applied to many countries.
Why do people in the UK need to buy Mercs and BMWs when Jags are made here. Please don't cloud the issue by saying Jags are rubbish, perhaps people from India could feel the same about whatever product they could buy from the UK instead of Korea etc.

Jaguar are owned by an Indian company, they could probably just make them in India.

 

[najaB]

Jaguar are owned by an Indian company, they could probably just make them in India.

If memory serves correct the Land Rover side of the business already produces in India and China.

 

[fowler9]

If memory serves correct the Land Rover side of the business already produces in India and China.

The joys of selling everything off and then trying to isolate yourself from the rest of the world. .

 

[Groningen]

I read a story from the Trump admistration that if UK wants to have trade with the USA about food. It has to follow the foodsstandards in the USA.

 

[fowler9]

I read a story from the Trump admistration that if UK wants to have trade with the USA about food. It has to follow the foodsstandards in the USA.

Thats us taking back control.

 

[najaB]

I read a story from the Trump admistration that if UK wants to have trade with the USA about food. It has to follow the foodsstandards in the USA.

To expand on @Groningen's point: the USA has much laxer standards for chicken farming. They don't have regulations governing the amount of room that birds must have so farmers pack them in as tight as they can. As a result, when the birds are slaughtered there is a much higher risk of contamination which they mitigate by using a chlorine wash during processing.

The chlorine isn't (as far as we can tell) hazardous in itself but was banned by the EU out of an abundance of caution because (a) there's a slight risk of carcinogenic compounds being formed by reactions between the chlorine and proteins in the meat; and (b) it's not necessary given our higher animal welfare standards.

The US Secretary of Commerce has hinted that accepting imports of chlorine-washed chicken will be required as part of any trade talks between Britain and the USA.

 

[Howardh]

The joys of selling everything off and then trying to isolate yourself from the rest of the world. .

Thats us taking back control.

Might be believable in an episode of Yes Prime Minister, but in real life? Nah, no-one would ever contemplate it let alone vote for it. In Episode 12 of Yes Prime Minister, we were forced to import chlorinated-washed chicken by the USA and because the EU wouldn't allow it in, we had to build a border across an island where neither part wanted it. Bernard suggested we changed the name of the chicken to "flightless meat" and dye it brown so it would look like beef and fool the EU.

 

[Groningen]

Thats us taking back control.

Apparently you did not read well. The UK has to follow health and safety from the USA; not UK with trade with the USA.

Read this than about chickens!

Thanks to Brexit, the UK may have to stoop to US food standards

With Brexit on the horizon, the UK is now looking for ways to open up trade with countries outside the EU. A trade deal with the US is one of the most significant options politicians are exploring and an agreement that would increase imports and exports of food and drink could be an important component of this. This has raised the possibility of the UK accepting US food standards, and a prominent example of this is the use of chlorine to wash chicken carcasses, which is currently banned in the EU.

It all comes down to money and efficiency of space. The majority of farmers do care about rearing their birds, but as profit margins can be very tight, animal welfare is sidelined to keep costs down. In the EU, cost is also important, but the law means it can’t come at the expense of the birds’ basic welfare. There is a legal minimum amount of space, lighting, and ventilation for EU poultry rearing houses.

The more space the birds have to move around in, the fewer can be housed in a single area, which in turn has an effect on production costs. As there are no laws governing this in the US, the birds can be crammed in tightly so they have limited movement, with little light or ventilation. This reduces production costs but increases the risks of disease and contamination in a flock.

Washing the chickens in a strong chlorine solution (20-50 parts per million of chlorine) provides a brash, cost-effective method of killing any microorganisms on the surface of the bird, particularly bacteria such as species of salmonella and campylobacter. This helps prevent the meat being contaminated with microbes during slaughter and evisceration.

US chicken has been banned in the EU since 1997 because of this chlorine washing process. But this isn’t because the treatment itself has been deemed dangerous. A report by the EU Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures, for example, highlighted that the chemical cleaning treatment can be effective at removing food borne pathogens depending on how it is used. The real fear is that heavily soiled birds may not be sufficiently disinfected, and that relying on chlorine washing could lead to poorer hygiene standards overall.

EU officials believe the food industry should be continually improving hygiene standards in all steps of processing—the “farm to fork” principle, and so have banned chickens washed in chlorine as a deterrent to poor practices. But in the US, there are no poultry welfare standards so the process is common. There have also been reports, including undercover video evidence by the Humane Society of the United States, of both inhumane and unsanitary practices being carried out within poultry houses due to a lack of animal welfare regulation.

Although there are some benefits to this chlorine washing, there are concerns about it. Some US abattoirs and processing plants rely heavily on chlorination because their other hygiene standards are so poor that they would be illegal in Europe. The process is also very good at removing odors and surface slime, meaning the meat can be passed off as fresh for much longer than it should be.

Chlorine isn’t toxic at the levels used in the washing process and doesn’t itself cause cancer. But studies have shown that the treatment can cause carcinogens such as semicarbazide and trihalomethanes to form in the poultry meat if the concentration of chlorine is high enough. The US Food Safety and Inspection Service does set limits to prevent this but there is always a risk they could be violated.

The EU ban is more precautionary than evidence based. When the ban was introduced, officials were keen that food manufacturers should focus on overall hygiene rather than relying on a single chemical decontamination step to eliminate microorganisms. It was also believed that the chemical decontamination step could encourage antibiotic resistance.

As a result, the EU introduced regulations laying down specific hygiene rules on the hygiene of foodstuffs. This prohibits the use of anything other than water to decontaminate meat and effectively bans US imports of poultry treated with antimicrobial rinses. However, the European Food Safety Authority has found no conclusive evidence that antimicrobial chemicals used in food processing contribute to antibiotic resistance.

Under current EU rules, the chlorine wash is classed as a processing aid rather than an ingredient and so wouldn’t have to be declared on the packaging. This means UK consumers would be unlikely to know whether imported US chicken had been through the chlorination process unless it was voluntarily declared. Of course, once the UK leaves the EU, it would be free to change the rules. But that doesn’t mean it necessarily would.

 

[fowler9]

Apparently you did not read well. The UK has to follow health and safety from the USA; not UK with trade with the USA.

Read this than about chickens!

That was me taking the p*ss, apologies for the sarcasm. I am a dedicated remainer. I don't want to leave the EU any more than I want my own private parts pulled off as a way to ensure I control my own breeding. Ha ha.

 

[northwichcat]

As I was trying to avoid, but obviously failed, people have picked up on the specifics of my post rather than the generality of its meaning.

Whatever the product a lot of people won't always buy British made unless there's a choice of high quality British made products for a competitive price.

 

[Groningen]

Look as you might know i am from the Netherlands. So i have no voice and frankly do not care. Only thing is that tradedeals have to be done separately in future with every country if i am correctly informed. It was strange to see that the story about chickens being picked by najaB before i came with the full article and talked about it.

 

[northwichcat]

So now it's been reported Brexiteer John Redwood has told investors to invest abroad because they won't get a good return on their investment in the UK.

Surely if Brexit boosts the economy then it will mean UK investments will only get better. :roll:

 

[Groningen]

The CBI gives bad advice again on the EU

I see the CBI is going to Downing Street to urge delay in leaving the EU and urge that we keep as many of the features of our membership as possible. We should remember how they lobbied and lobbied to get the UK into the European Exchange Rate Mechanism which gave us boom and bust, and a large recession, which did considerable damage to their member companies. They then thought the Euro a good idea and claimed we would lose out by not joining it, especially in the City. Instead the City grew and flourished outside the Euro. Now they want to prolong the period of uncertainty by demanding a Transitional period, and delay making our own trade agreements. Above all they seem to want to cripple the UK economy for longer with large transfers of money to the rest of the EU, with the consequent big drag on our balance of payments. They could be helpful to their member firms if instead they concentrated on lobbying the EU not to impose any new barriers on their trade with us when we leave. It’s the EU which pretends to want new barriers, not the UK.

From the blog of John Redwood; i think he is still a Brexiteer.

http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/

 

[Howardh]

So now it's been reported Brexiteer John Redwood has told investors to invest abroad because they won't get a good return on their investment in the UK.

Surely if Brexit boosts the economy then it will mean UK investments will only get better. :roll:

Yes, after being all over facebook and twitter today, one of the daily rags has picked up on it (Guardian) no doubt others will follow. It has been noted that most of the top Brexiteers (a) have a lot of money, shares, investements and dealings and (b) not all of it is done in the UK.
I have a sneaky suspicion that if Brexit goes bottom-up, they may be OK in Bermuda or the Caymen Isles. But remember all you Brexit voters, you're all in it together, everyone equal and all that, so no worries if your job's on the line; people like Redwood will be OK, so relax.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A direct sea crossing from Ireland to France takes much longer.

A sea crossing is still required from the island of Eire to the continental area of the EU, but at the same time, takes away the hassle of having to tranship into a non-EU country.

 

[furnessvale]

A sea crossing is still required from the island of Eire to the continental area of the EU, but at the same time, takes away the hassle of having to tranship into a non-EU country.

I am sure that, post Brexit, more Irish Ro-Ro traffic will take a direct ferry from the south to France rather than 2 ferries and road through the UK.

The only thing that stops that happening now is the ridiculously cheap price of road haulage and the lack of effective policing of its misdemeanours.

I for one will not miss the convoys of Irish lorries speeding non stop from north west ports to Dover etc.

 

[najaB]

A sea crossing is still required from the island of Eire to the continental area of the EU, but at the same time, takes away the hassle of having to tranship into a non-EU country.

It's approximately 19 hours to travel from Rosslare to Cherbourg by ferry, as compared to 3.5 hours from Dublin to Holyhead, 6 hours from Holyhead to Dover and 2 hours from Dover to Calais.

So the route through the UK would win on time, but as you say loses out because of two border crossings.

 

[Howardh]

It's approximately 19 hours to travel from Rosslare to Cherbourg by ferry, as compared to 3.5 hours from Dublin to Holyhead, 6 hours from Holyhead to Dover and 2 hours from Dover to Calais.

So the route through the UK would win on time, but as you say loses out because of two border crossings.

6 hours Holyhead to Dover? Think that's a bit optimistic especially during the day, and drivers would have to Take a 45 min break on top!!

Edit 374 miles in 6 hrs wouud be faster than the legal speed limit for HGV's which I think is 60 these days (???).

 

[northwichcat]

6 hours Holyhead to Dover? Think that's a bit optimistic especially during the day, and drivers would have to Take a 45 min break on top!!

Edit 374 miles in 6 hrs wouud be faster than the legal speed limit for HGV's which I think is 60 these days (???).

Before the speed limiters were fitted to vehicles it wasn't uncommon to see Irish registered coaches breaking the 70mph limit on motorways in the UK. I don't know if HGV drivers keep to the speed limit more.

 

[EM2]

Edit 374 miles in 6 hrs wouud be faster than the legal speed limit for HGV's which I think is 60 these days (???).

56mph (90kph). 374 miles would take just under seven hours at that speed (without breaks).

 

[EM2]

Another millionaire proponent of Leave, Sir James Dyson, believes that the UK should 'walk out' of the Brexit talks (thus leaving us with 'no deal'), scrap corporation tax once we leave, and make it easier to 'hire and fire'.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/polit..._talks_and_scrap_corporation_tax__says_Dyson/

THE vacuum tycoon Sir James Dyson has sparked controversy by saying the UK should walk out of Brexit talks, axe corporation tax and make it “easier to hire and fire" people.

The Leave supporting inventor said it was outrageous that Brussels was being unreasonable in demanding “billions and billions” to settle the UK’s divorce bill.

He told BBC One's The Andrew Marr Show: “Demanding billions and billions to leave is quite outrageous and demanding it before we negotiate anything is outrageous.


"So, I would walk away. I think that's the only way to deal with them."

He said the UK was in an “incredibly strong position” and the EU would “come to us”.

Sir James also called for corporation tax to be “eliminated”.

He said: “A tax on profits is the wrong way to tax people. Corporation tax is a very odd thing because there’s ways to get around paying it.

“You shouldn’t really be taxing people’s profits, you should allow profits to be reinvested. And also, if you remove corporation tax you encourage a lot of other industry to come to Britain.”

He said manufacturing was put off by the “very difficult employment laws” in the UK.

“This is controversial, but since I don’t know what orders I’m going to get next month or next year, and the manufacturing industry is very volatile, not being able to flex your workforce is another reason why you wouldn’t start or expand a manufacturing business.”

Asked if he meant making it easier to hire and fire people, he said: “Easier to hire and fire."

 

[Groningen]

Maybe i am wrong, but think that trucks from and to Ireland still cross England. Is there something chancing if the UK leaves the EU?

 

[najaB]

6 hours Holyhead to Dover? Think that's a bit optimistic especially during the day, and drivers would have to Take a 45 min break on top!!

That was Google's suggested time, but I guess that was based on a car rather than a lorry.