Brexit Delay? The EU wants one, the UK does not.

@The Rhetoric of Life Was reading the Telegraph today and it seems Nissan are thinking of moving Renault production over to the UK nothing decided yet but...

 

I'd like VW to have a UK factory, or BMW.
BMW have one in the US.

 

Unlikely because Nissan doesn't have to decide ... just because Nissan isn't the head of the Nissan-Renaul-Mitsubishi Alliance.

 

Now very matter-of-factly ... which hopefully works:
You know that these are German manufacturers. They have factories in the UK and at BMW it's mostly (but not only) the Mini and it's Rolls Royce.
The Mini, in particular, is so far only made in the UK and exported from the UK all over the world, including the EU, USA and Asia.
If no agreement is reached now and you are in the UK ... as you mentioned in this thread ... customs duties are levied on goods from the EU, then there are countermeasures against equal EU duties for imports from the UK.

This makes the Mini correspondingly more expensive for customers in the EU and, depending on how much more expensive, BMW is no different than all other companies in the world and only one thing counts: the money!
Production in the UK is quickly reduced in at least parts = layoffs in the UK ... and a new plant is opened somewhere in the EU. Since BMW, like everyone else, simply calculates soberly and coldly with the calculator where something is made!

 

The EU seems to think it's wrong of the UK to want the same thing any other country gets from the EU; access to the EU market without having to follow the EU rules.
This is why there's a stalemate in these UK/EU negations because the EU is asking more of the UK than it is of Canada.

 

...well...I'm sure that is being looked into by Nissan, Renault and the DT wouldn't you think? It just serves to illustrate the extent of the information base from which one has to formulate one's opinions. We don't know everything about everything even with the advent of the internet.

 

Well, I guess the UK has at the present a little virus problem, not under control and a economy in a free fall and the longer the problem lasts, the worse the conditions of the economy and the worse the position negotiating any thing.

 

The EU can state any terms it wants for the UK to have access to it's markets, and the UK likewise. Both side can refuse.
I don't think rightness or wrongness comes into it. if the EU want there to be certain rules followed by the UK and the UK doesn't like it. Then the UK can walk away. The UK can't moan that they want the same conditions as Canada or anywhere else. If the UK doesn't like it, then tough.

 

Well ... at least any decisions in such companies are only done by the calculator in matter of win or lost money. isn't it?

 

And the next fake news and lie from you ....

Which other countries get free access to EU market without following the EU rules please?
There is no such country existing AND THIS IS FACT!!!
Of course there can be exceptions negotiated for this or that ... for sure ... but then all EU member states have to agree in EU council too and if only one says no, the exception is dead!

And do you actually know which EU rules are involved? Apparently not ... because it's about norms, standards, safety regulations and other things EVERYONE wants to export goods to the EU has to follow. And if the UK wants to sell something to the EU, the same applies to UK as to everyone else! But of course you don't like that ... because UK is so special they have not and it is impudent from EU to demand such things... and I have no understanding for that!

If you have in the UK ... no longer a member of the EU ... for example no problem then you have to import chlorine chicken and genetically manipulated stuff from the USA without clear labeling that is genetically manipulated etc., this is your thing in the UK ... and interested the EU at least only a crap! BUT ... the EU wants to be sure that the UK will not become an open back door for these things from the USA and the EU has every right to do everything to prevent this!

 

well....to be fair most foods are now "genetically manipulated" in the broadest sense of the word otherwise we'd all be starving. Anyway look at the on-going research undertaken by cigar as an adjunct to "global warming" and the supposed effects of future droughts and feeding of the worlds ever growing population; especially when we are all packed into a few square meters and no water....but seriously rice, wheat etc. are being DREB'ed so we can have a slice of toast in future

....what's the problem?

 

Maybe ... but this is a topic of huge dispute and endlesse discussions as you know.
We can discuss endlessly about the existing or non-existent dangers of genetically modified food. Personally, I am very skeptical when this "science" goes beyond simply increasing crop yields and making plants immune to poisons from pesticides. The whole science has not really been studied as far as long-term consequences are concerned.
And when Monsanto's glyphosate (some better known as Round up) and this disgusting criminal behavior come along, it gets really bad!

But more importantly: It is about the clear labeling of because is genetically manipulated or not and that has something to do with consumer protection. Again, not only because of the protection against dangers, but every consumer has the right to decide for himself or to read on the back of the package. Whoever denies this right didn't hear the bang in his head for me.

The EU and the US have a long-running dispute over imports of chlorine-treated poultry, which EU member states have refused to accept since 1997. The feud has resulted in proceedings before the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and remains a major bone of contention in EU-US trade relations.
Again we can discuss endless about ... but this does not matter: The EU does not allow and then all others have to accept it and nothing to blame about - point!

 

Who the f@ck are you to take away my freedom of movement in the EU?

 

This is where you make yourself look foolish and badly informed.
Go and research why we can import beef from New Zealand but not Australia.
Check out why American chicken can not be imported into the EU but Brazilian chicken can.
Do that and you might have a better understanding of whether countries have to abide by EU rules in order to trade with them or not.

 

yeah...I'm on your side there.

No issue there its just that I think (and I take your point about the rules being the rules) that the rule is rather silly based upon the uses and consumption of chemicals permitted in other foods which have far more adverse effects on the population. I understand that the ban was a purely political decision based on cultural factors which tweaked my interest when you brought it up; ultimately there is no health issues with the chicken just cultural issues.

 

I am secretly hoping that the pandemic lead to the cessation of eating creatures of all kinds, chlorinated or not.

 

Many people misunderstand the issue when it comes to chlorinated chicken.
The problem is not that the bleach itself is hazardous when ingested it is the fact that US chicken production hygiene standards are so far behind the EU's that they have to use bleach in order to make the chicken safe to eat. Here in the UK, for example, salmonella has been virtually eliminated from flocks but the procedures come at a cost. If much cheaper to produce bleached chicken was allowed it would give the imported product an unfair economic advantage for producing an inferior product.
It's the grown-up version of not rewarding bad behavior, usually applied to children.

 

Exactly, they don't want the chemical as the sweeper...... rules are rules though......

....so whats the argument for over-salted and over-sweetened foods to attract children into a life of lard-arsed gluttony....so manufacturers can flourish at the expense of lard-arsed kids?

 

Honestly, I'm not so far in this topic about why and so on chlorine chicken bad etc. ... but if the EU says No in common about and the decision was confirmed as it is by the EU council, then this is the rule and all who want to export into EU have to follow it. I would say that others have to accept a No also from the EU and to get it.

 

I'm vegan too ... I only eat animals that have a plant-based diet!

Sorry ... vegans and vegetarians are in a very bad position with me and I have zero understanding for them.
If someone wants to eat vegan / vegetarian, then this person should do it and it has every right to do it ... and it doesn't matter to me either and i give a crap about.
But if someone of them starts to play with me as a senior teacher and / or somehow somehow tries to convince some bad conscience while enjoying a steak or something or come up with nonsense like cruelty to animals, then it bounces off me like dirt on Teflon.

 

Again I have absolutely no issue with that and totally agree - if you want to be a member then you abide by the rules - simple as that.

However, let me play devil's advocate for a second; the issue one could view is one of "realpolikting" the whole of the EU for the benefit of the politics of an individual member state. Now I seem to recall that at the time of this discussion there was an issue within the German government which meant that in order to secure her position, Merkel had to agree to the demands of the vocal (minority of) the "middle-class". Nobody had heard of this process of chlorination but in reality it was the Greens that had instigated the issue and was more about the treatment of chickens. So TTIP was basically railroaded off the back of the German Greens worried about the health of chickens. They managed to package the narrative of the meat being Chlorinated as being bad for consumers and the native German producers like DFI - whereas in reality it is bathed in water which has as much chlorine in it as the average German swimming pool. Merkel who was very much pro-TTIP had to agree with a small but vocal minority of the wealthy Munich, Berlin and Hamburg set in order to maintain her position..... anyway.....its a viewpoint.

Certainly the issue of the chicken has been used as a means of realpolitiking the demise of a trade agreement that...could have been....may have been....should have been.......good for the EU as a whole?

 

Yeah. I ought to have kept my secret hope a secret.

 

Isn't it about comparative animal husbandry rather than about the amount of chlorine?
As mentioned above I understood the issue to be that in America you can rear animals in as filthy and awful conditions as you like as long as they get washed down with chlorine after being killed.
By contrast in the EU the requirement is supposed to be cleaner and more wholesome rearing of animals, which negates the need for a chlorinated was down.
More or less an issue (however ironic seeing as they're killed anyway) about how moral we are at keeping creatures.

 

There isn't an argument for them. That's why we have a sugar tax on drinks and I suspect fast foods are in the firing line too.
Not quite the same as possible food poisoning death though.

 

I couldn't agree more. But then that calls into question a whole legion of moralistic arguments about the whole basis of international trade and globalisation which to be frank a bit outside the realms of this thread?

Anyway, just continue my playing devil's advocate on this esoteric subject of chlorinated chicken and the EU. My characterisation of the situation is that a narrative was constructed against a product because a certain sector of the political elite was pro-animal rights; if you recall there was also the same narrative about animal testing of cosmetics (I think, or was pharam??) in the US which didn't gain as much traction in the anti-TTIP brigade. One of the household names in Germany is Tchibo - on arrival in my new job in Hamburg the first words in German I learnt "ein funt Gala no 1 extrafein gemahlen" (or something like that) Tchibo was the place to buy your coffee at the time - nobody gave a crap that Tchibo coffee came from places that exploited child labour, and I can imagine that any political group that tried to interfere with a trade deal that deined Tchibo access to their coffee would have been kicked out. So exploiting kids was fine but how dare they not want free range chickens!

The point of a trade deal and trade in general is to offer alternatives in style, price, quality for example. The EU has a whole host of different people with a whole host of different asperations based on household income, job opportunities, social structures, social history etc. etc. thus is it right that a small number of middle/upper class Germans should deny the opportunity of choice to people of lesser wealth and lesser social class? Is it right for them to make decisions and influence policy about how people should live and consume in order to satisfy their perceptions on a moralistic version of their world view? Is it right for a political leader to advocate something that they don't really agree with in order to placate a small vocal group to protect their own position of power? Would it not be easier to allow this crappy chicken to be sold as long as it is labelled accordingly thus allowing people to make their own decisions based on their own situations i.e. allowing choice?