Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[Dotini]

Please explain in detail what disadvantage they have in trade and why and how it will be used against them.

I do believe that question has been answered many times over in this very thread. It has been vouchsafed that the UK would be economically harmed in the aftermath of Brexit.

 

[Danoff]

I do believe that question has been answered many times over in this very thread. It has been vouchsafed that the UK would be economically harmed in the aftermath of Brexit.

That's not the same thing.

Brexit overall harming the UK economy is not them being at a disadvantage when it comes to trading with the US. Please explain how the UK as a trading partner with another country (say, the US) is at a disadvantage in the trade and how and why it will be used against them.

 

[eran0004]

So Corbyn has been doing nothing but cry out for a general election for the past two years, and when the opportunity finally arises, not only does he abstain from voting, but also convinces the entire party to do so because they know it would kill them off. Surely this is grounds for a vote of no confidence?

Just because you express a wish for something doesn’t mean that you would have it at any cost.

 

[Imari]

I do believe that question has been answered many times over in this very thread.

Classic Dotini. Avoid answering even the simplest possible question claiming that it's already been answered somewhere in this 192 page thread.

It has been vouchsafed that the UK would be economically harmed in the aftermath of Brexit.

And trade is the only part of the economy, right?

 

[Dotini]

Brexit overall harming the UK economy is not them being at a disadvantage when it comes to trading with the US. Please explain how the UK as a trading partner with another country (say, the US) is at a disadvantage in the trade and how and why it will be used against them.

For example:
UK international trade is expected to fall 22% due to Brexit. Other free trade agreement cannot take up the slack. A pact with the BRIICS could claw back 2.2%. A free trade agreement with U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand would do slightly better, at 2.6%. So the UK is going to be highly motivated to deal. The US wants to sell chlorinated chickens. The EU forbids it. But now Brits will eat chlorinated US chickens if they want a deal. Also we will hold a veto over UK policy with respect to Northern Ireland. We will reject any deal that violates the GFA, to which we are a party.

 

[Danoff]

For example:
UK international trade is expected to fall 22% due to Brexit. Other free trade agreement cannot take up the slack. A pact with the BRIICS could claw back 2.2%. A free trade agreement with U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand would do slightly better, at 2.6%. So the UK is going to be highly motivated to deal.

This part is irrelevant.

The US wants to sell chlorinated chickens.

No. A company wants to sell chlorinated chickens.

The EU forbids it. But now Brits will eat chlorinated US chickens if they want a deal.

A company wants to buy chlorinated chickens.

Also we will hold a veto over UK policy with respect to Northern Ireland. We will reject any deal that violates the GFA, to which we are a party.

So you think that the US (government) will try to block UK policy with respect to Ireland in order to benefit a US-based chlorinated chicken company? This is your "disadvantage" scenario? Are you listening to yourself? I'll grant you that almost anything is possible with Trump in office, but the notion that the US wants UK companies to buy products from, or sell products to, specific US companies, so badly that it will inject itself into disputes in this way is... well it strains credibility.

What do you think that's going to look like exactly? We're going to demand that someone... a specific UK company... buy or sell goods... to a specific US company... or else we'll do something to the UK government? And the... wait... the UK government is supposed to force that to happen? How exactly?

Even the US "trade war" with China doesn't involve that kind of subterfuge.

 

[Dotini]

This part is irrelevant.



No. A company wants to sell chlorinated chickens.



A company wants to buy chlorinated chickens.



So you think that the US (government) will try to block UK policy with respect to Ireland in order to benefit a US-based chlorinated chicken company? This is your "disadvantage" scenario? Are you listening to yourself? I'll grant you that almost anything is possible with Trump in office, but the notion that the US wants UK companies to buy products from, or sell products to, specific US companies, so badly that it will inject itself into disputes in this way is... well it strains credibility.

What do you think that's going to look like exactly? We're going to demand that someone... a specific UK company... buy or sell goods... to a specific US company... or else we'll do something to the UK government? And the... wait... the UK government is supposed to force that to happen? How exactly?

Even the US "trade war" with China doesn't involve that kind of subterfuge.

You asked me to explain how the UK as a trading partner with the US is at a disadvantage in trade negotiations, and how and why it will be used against them. Frankly, I thought I did a damn fine job of doing exactly, and I mean exactly that. If you really think otherwise, then I am very sorry, but can do no better other than to add detail on specific questions.

 

[Danoff]

You asked me to explain how the UK as a trading partner with the US) is at a disadvantage in the trade and how and why it will be used against them. Frankly, I thought I did a damn fine job of doing exactly, and I mean exactly that. If you really think otherwise, then I am very sorry, but can do no better.

Ok, thanks for trying. I remain wholly unconvinced that the UK is at a trade disadvantage.

Edit:

For the record, I thought you were going to go with some kind of tariff argument, which I had a separate rebuttal tee'd up for. Kinda bummed i didn't get to use it, but I'm sure its time will come around.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I remain wholly unconvinced that the UK is at a trade disadvantage.

The 30-something nearest countries to us have use common customs area (either through EU membership or affiliation, all dependent on accepting the principles of free trade and free movement) and preferential trade agreements with much of the rest of the world. How is leaving that an advantage?

 

[Danoff]

The 30-something nearest countries to us have use common customs area (either through EU membership or affiliation, all dependent on accepting the principles of free trade and free movement) and preferential trade agreements with much of the rest of the world. How is leaving that an advantage?

I think you meant to attribute that post to me.

I didn't say leaving the EU was an advantage or disadvantage. @Dotini was claiming that the UK was at a disadvantage when trading with the US.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

You asked me to explain how the UK as a trading partner with the US is at a disadvantage in trade negotiations,

The only thing that would put them at a trade disadvantage is if what they had to sell/trade or barter was of no interest to who they wanted to trade with. Basically, right now if all the U.K had for instance to offer the U.S. was say Soy Beans then with the current glut of that product in our warehouses they may not find very good trade terms monetarily with the U.S.

But yet China may pay very good prices for every Soy bean the U.K. wants to sell since they have no tariff attached.

So does that mean the U.K. is disadvantaged or rather it needs to buy/sell in multiple markets. With today's world based economy Europe is not the only source for most items.

 

[TenEightyOne]

With today's world based economy Europe is not the only source for most items.

That's correct, but it still accounts for 45% of our exports and a £67 billion trade deficit - which is widening day-on-day with the devaluation of the pound. Much of that export is service industry which can only trade with EU areas because it specialises in common law services like banking, legal advice, financial management, and so on. Those industries that don't move to the EU will not be able to work in Britain because they will be outside the EU border.

That's why Rees-Mogg has moved his business to Dublin. As currency purchaser you might think he stands to make a lot of money from the financial effects of Brexit. Because he does.

EDIT: The West Yorkshire Police Commissioner is angry that Johnson used police cadets as a backdrop for a Brexit speech and is demanding that the Chief Constable explains how it was allowed to happen.

The speech was a car crash, one of the cadets seemed to be taken ill and rather than help Boris flaffed, flammed and fluffed through the end of his speech.

 

[Liquid]

I think that trade deals with the USA prey on the fear of a reduction in, primarily, food and drink health standards. Bleached chicken is the classic example but extends to other products too; whiskey must be barrel-aged a minimum of three years to qualify as such according to European standards but there are exemptions in the USA where it can be aged one year and caramel is added to colour it so that it looks more aged.

It's a perception, whether true or not, of inferior American products and is particularly held with food and drink. If the UK and USA have a trade deal, the UK will be flooded with cheap imports of bleached chicken, caramel white spirit and spray-on cheese that undercut domestic produce.

The fear is held because a hypothetical trade deal between UK and USA would see UK conform to American standards and not the other way round. Let's not even pretend.

As @TenEightyOne alludes to as well, the UK has heavily and willfully transformed into a service sector economy since the 1980s. There are fewer physical products to "sell" to the USA to make up the trade deficit compared to selling financial and other B2C services to your nearest neighbours who have the same legal and company laws that you do.

 

[Novalee]

with research, chicken is not washed with bleach, it is rinsed with water that has less chlorine ppm than used for drinking water.

so if anyone buys chicken then rinses it before cooking , is doing the exact same thing .

 

[TenEightyOne]

with research, chicken is not washed with bleach, it is rinsed with water that has less chlorine ppm than used for drinking water.

However, drinking water doesn't allow the formation of carcinogenic chlorate compounds, chicken does. And "chlorine washed" is actually used to cover all PRT processes, chlorine isn't the only food-nasty in there. More worrying are the findings that 97% of US chicken could contain salmonella. I checked that in a few places because it's so incredible, but it's true. That was a national crisis when it happened in the UK (Curry's eggs), I'm not sure why it isn't in the US - particularly given that chicken kills more Americans every year than any other foodstuff.

so if anyone buys chicken then rinses it before cooking , is doing the exact same thing .

Unless you're from a culture that lemon washes chicken... nobody washes meat before they use it, and the few that still did (probably very old people) were advised to stop many years ago.

 

[MatskiMonk]

with research, chicken is not washed with bleach, it is rinsed with water that has less chlorine ppm than used for drinking water.

so if anyone buys chicken then rinses it before cooking , is doing the exact same thing .

The issue that our poultry industry is keen to point out, is not one only of food standards, but also animal welfare. If you are going to 'bleach' (and yes common bleaches are chlorine based - bleach is a term abit like plastic) something, then you don't need to treat or handle it as well before hand.

 

[Famine]

Pfft, anyone who buys their chicken - or any meat - from a supermarket gets all the additives they deserve anyway.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Pfft, anyone who buys their chicken - or any meat - from a supermarket gets all the additives they deserve anyway.

I agree in principle but the truth is that not that many people have access to the farming supply chain. There's a nice butcher in Beverley that I like to get chickens from when I come over all posh... but it's much cheaper to get a supermarket chicken. Food cost is a big thing for a lot of families, I'm not sure it's about what they deserve but about necessity.

 

[Danoff]

The fear is held because a hypothetical trade deal between UK and USA would see UK conform to American standards and not the other way round. Let's not even pretend.

The UK would only buy goods from America that it wants to actually own, and consume. If UK residents want to buy goods that conform to lower standards, then they want to buy goods that conform to lower standards. That's trade, and it benefits both parties.

This is how quality of life goes up, btw.

 

[Famine]

I agree in principle but the truth is that not that many people have access to the farming supply chain. There's a nice butcher in Beverley that I like to get chickens from when I come over all posh... but it's much cheaper to get a supermarket chicken. Food cost is a big thing for a lot of families, I'm not sure it's about what they deserve but about necessity.

I am a cheapskate Yorkshireman - it costs me less to get chickens and chicken portions (which we use a lot of) from either of our two nearby butchers (big ones, rather than high street shops) than from Morrisons...

... all sourced from local farms too

 

[TenEightyOne]

The UK would only buy goods from America that it wants to actually own, and consume. If UK residents want to buy goods that conform to lower standards, then they want to buy goods that conform to lower standards. That's trade, and it benefits both parties.

If prices aren't competitive then supermarkets will stock the cheapest-to-acquire product. If UK farms can't compete (and EU farms surely won't be able to) then the customer choice is diminished. It benefits the supermarkets, not the customers.

This is how quality of life goes up, btw.

Um, no. Looking at the example in hand its how we're forced to accept food produced to lower standards than we're used to. Because we're taking back control and all that.

 

[Danoff]

If prices aren't competitive then supermarkets will stock the cheapest-to-acquire product. If UK farms can't compete (and EU farms surely won't be able to) then the customer choice is diminished. It benefits the supermarkets, not the customers.

The customers represent the demand, the supermarket is the supply. The introduction of additional options does not reduce your number of options.

Um, no. Looking at the example in hand its how we're forced to accept food produced to lower standards than we're used to. Because we're taking back control and all that.

Nobody's forced to accept anything.

What I'm hearing is a lot of "I don't like the choices that other people are going to make". So protectionist, so anti-market.

 

[baldgye]

As a city dweller I’m yet to find a good butcher where I live. In towns it’s far easier, but your kinda stuck otherwise...

 

[Novalee]

haha all i know is from watching gordon ramsey half the stuff he cooks i wouldnt eat.

should be interesting to see where this brexit leads to now . In canada our news treats it like a day time drama .

 

[TenEightyOne]

The customers represent the demand, the supermarket is the supply.

That isn't how it works in real life, that's how it works in classroom theory. In real life the supermarket stacks the cheapest products it can as high as possible. The supermarkets force supplier prices down, things that they make a loss on like milk and bread are a good example.

Nobody's forced to accept anything.

Although they can't buy what they can't buy. People who are forced to shop within set financial constraints (which is many people) will be finding some basic foodstuffs being produced to lower standards than now. That isn't their choice, they're not buying for the supermarkets.

I am a cheapskate Yorkshireman - it costs me less to get chickens and chicken portions (which we use a lot of) from either of our two nearby butchers (big ones, rather than high street shops) than from Morrisons...

... all sourced from local farms too

That's astonishing - how much are you paying a kilo?

haha all i know is from watching gordon ramsey half the stuff he cooks i wouldnt eat.

You wouldn't eat the food of a chef with seven Michelin stars? I bloody would!

 

[Danoff]

That isn't how it works in real life, that's how it works in classroom theory. In real life the supermarket stacks the cheapest products it can as high as possible. The supermarkets force supplier prices down, things that they make a loss on like milk and bread are a good example.

That's not how tons and tons of supermarkets work. That's kinda Walmart's philosophy, but not so much... Whole Foods, for example. In many supermarkets both cheap and expensive items are available to cater to a wider audience of customers. That's because the customer is the demand, and the supermarket is the supply.

Although they can't buy what they can't buy.

If an area of the market is undeserved, that creates demand, which can cause supply to be provided.

People who are forced to shop within set financial constraints (which is many people) will be finding some basic foodstuffs being produced to lower standards than now.

Again, we're adding options here compared to what would exist without trade.

That isn't their choice, they're not buying for the supermarkets.

They're the demand.


Edit:

Case in point, non-chlorinated chicken labeling (air chilled):

That last one is at a Safeway, which is a non-high-end, typical, grocery store here in the US. Non-chlorinated chicken.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That's not how tons and tons of supermarkets work. That's kinda Walmart's philosophy, but not so much... Whole Foods, for example. In many supermarkets both cheap and expensive items are available to cater to a wider audience of customers. That's because the customer is the demand, and the supermarket is the supply.

It's not that expensive items aren't available, it's that standard items become a lower quality. We could all drive Ferraris and benefit from F1-style carbon technology in accidents. That doesn't mean that safety standards for the average family car can therefore be reduced. If the market changes so that only lower quality family cars are available then that's bad for the customer.

Case in point, non-chlorinated chicken labeling (air chilled):

That last one is at a Safeway, which is a non-high-end, typical, grocery store here in the US. Non-chlorinated chicken.

Air-chilled is the same as "refrigerated", I guess? That's quite the marketing up-sell.

British chicken breast packet cost about £5.29 per kilo (£2.40 per pound, $2.96 per pound). One of those packets of refrigerated chicken that's "cage free" (another great marketing term) is $9.99 per pound, that translates back to £17.29 per kilo, three and a half times more. The British chicken is also refrigerated, unlike the USA has regulations on the packing of those cage-free chickens in sheds, and is produced under stringent antibiotic rules. It also has "access to natural sunlight" (marketing term) can be "organic" (marketing term) and is, in reality, produced in largely-similar factory conditions.

What's worrying me now, and it hadn't occurred to me until you posted, is how expensive US chicken evidently is.

 

[Danoff]

It's not that expensive items aren't available, it's that standard items become a lower quality. We could all drive Ferraris and benefit from F1-style carbon technology in accidents. That doesn't mean that safety standards for the average family car can therefore be reduced. If the market changes so that only lower quality family cars are available then that's bad for the customer.

I think you're somehow comparing going from trading with some country in the EU to not trading with them in order to come up with a scenario with something that's off the table. Otherwise I'm confused as to why you keep coming back to this.

Air-chilled is the same as "refrigerated", I guess? That's quite the marketing up-sell.

Air-chilled means it wasn't water chilled for preservation after slaughter. The water vats contain some chlorine, and the chicken, when water-chilled, is submerged in some level of chlorine and will absorb it. Air-chilled basically means a significantly reduced chlorine exposure.

British chicken breast packet cost about £5.29 per kilo (£2.40 per pound, $2.96 per pound). One of those packets of refrigerated chicken that's "cage free" (another great marketing term) is $9.99 per pound, that translates back to £17.29 per kilo, three and a half times more. The British chicken is also refrigerated, unlike the USA has regulations on the packing of those cage-free chickens in sheds, and is produced under stringent antibiotic rules. It also has "access to natural sunlight" (marketing term) can be "organic" (marketing term) and is, in reality, produced in largely-similar factory conditions.

What's worrying me now, and it hadn't occurred to me until you posted, is how expensive US chicken evidently is.

It is expensive to get the stuff with all of those labels on it. No hormones, no steroids, no antibiotics, air chilled, vegetarian fed, cage-free - it all adds cost. You can get $3 per pound chicken here (I think), probably even less. But it won't have all of those labels on the package.

My point is that if there is a demand for those conditions, it is met. It's met by US stores that aren't required to serve that demand, but people want it, so we have it. The same is true in the UK, if there is demand, it will be met. And since the introduction of new suppliers of goods doesn't eliminate any options you currently have, it doesn't increase prices.

 

[Dotini]

What's worrying me now, and it hadn't occurred to me until you posted, is how expensive US chicken evidently is.

For you, my cousin, we make such a special deal!

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think you're somehow comparing going from trading with some country in the EU to not trading with them in order to come up with a scenario with something that's off the table. Otherwise I'm confused as to why you keep coming back to this.

That's the whole point. We don't have a trade deal with the EU for poultry (or pretty much anything), the government are reportedly looking at a cheaper deal with the US. That's why it's the topic of discussion.

Air-chilled means it wasn't water chilled for preservation after slaughter. The water vats contain some chlorine, and the chicken, when water-chilled, is submerged in some level of chlorine and will absorb it. Air-chilled basically means a significantly reduced chlorine exposure.

Yes, it's washed (to remove fragments of guts and feather from the abbatoir process) and refrigerated. That's the normal process for chicken in the UK and EU. Chlorine-washing isn't a process for chicken produced at any price-point.

It is expensive to get the stuff with all of those labels on it. No hormones, no steroids, no antibiotics, air chilled, vegetarian fed, cage-free - it all adds cost. You can get $3 per pound chicken here (I think), probably even less. But it won't have all of those labels on the package.

And that's the other point. Those basic EU standards are three times more expensive in the USA. Hormones are banned in EU chicken. Chickens are vegetarian animals, I'm not sure giving them a vegetarian diet is a big selling point. Cage-free is just marketing, they're kept in huge beds in sheds, although in the USA there's no limit on how many can be packed in there whereas there is in the EU.

Why aren't American consumers questioning why all those basics are actually being upsold as Big Price Packet Stickers? Why should the UK be put in position where we have to accept that as the new standard when things were supposed to be getting better, not worse? Is it feasible that we'd be able to buy US chicken that meets the UK/EU standards that we're used to at the price that we're used to paying for that standard?