Britain tells the EU: we shall not sell out our fishermen

[TheDark]

31 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

About half of those 450 million customers come from relatively poor countries, or countries with crippled economies. It's not all about the number of people you know. 

Are you saying these people from mostly from Eastern Europe, are the kind of people Brexiteers wish to do business with?

 

I mean, one of the brexiteer talking points was that 'free' England is able to do trade deals with emerging Asian countries, whose economies are growing fast. Quite like the Eastern European countries.

 

Do try to to make your mind, what you actually want. Being all grumpy without any ideas how to improve situation is quite useless. 

[TheDark]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

Oh this is good stuff.

If Scotland goes independent then you think England can run roughshod over international laws?

Seriously?

Might add it didn't end well the last time you guys tried it. 

Honestly there should be some TV award for most ludicrous post of the year.  

I'm pretty sure England would not dream to threaten an EU country like that. After all England is just a small and ever diminishing country / culture next to giants. 

 

Scotland will be fine as part of the EU family.

[evadgib]

53 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Feeling a little bit inadequate ?

See this is where you Brexiteers go wrong. You believe wholeheartedly in English exceptionalism. That the rest of the world will simply acquiesce to your demands and beliefs.

Let me clue you up. Englands best days are way, way behind it. Its a small fish in a big pond with no leverage with anyone.

I am truly sorry if this revelation comes as a surprise.  

Well done you're getting the idea. Now superimpose the N Sea oil & gas fields and the best fishing grounds...

 

BTW: The only people who believe your exceptionalism baloney are those that constantly ram it down the throats of everyone else the silent majority. A good number of those support the SNP.

Edited March 3, 2020 by evadgib

[Monomial]

11 hours ago, fruitman said:

Do americans have lower food standards than the Brits?

 

I never heard of that, why kind of low standards should i think of?

 

This piqued my curiosity the first time I heard it as well. It is mostly referred to pejoritavely as "chlorinated chickens".  I was very curious to know more, so I did a little investigation. I am far from an expert on this, but here is what I was able to uncover, and I believe it is as free from bias as I could get. EU law for farming is based not only on cleanliness and health standards, but also on values for animal rights. Since animal rights is a value not universally shared globally however, the EU needs to find some way to introduce FUD making their policies superior even for those who don't share their values. They did this by invoking cleanliness standards, and specifically maligning chlorinated chickens as an example.

 

The problem is, it appears that from an unbiased health perspective there is absolutely no difference in the end between a US chicken that has been cleaned by chlorinating, and an EU chicken that has been raised according to stricter controls regarding population density. However, allowing competition by US farmers employing higher density chicken populations and killing the bacteria at the end with chlorine would put EU farmers following EU regulations at a serious disadvantage. Thus, the whole "chlorinated chicken" debacle.

 

Note that there are caveats to this. Antibiotics are more heavily used in the US system, leading to a faster buildup of resistance and thus there is a hidden cost to the US system that is being passed into the future. It is not clear how much that actually is, but there have been some attempts to quantify this. Much like global warming though, it is a future problem that today merely represents a value choice, rather than a genuine immediate health concern. Since the EU can't count on everyone accepting their values, again they have to try and turn it into a health scare, which doesn't hold up under close scrutiny.

 

There are also some US policies, such as GMO feed, which are allowed in some states in the USA, but are so heavily regulated by states already that it would be very easy to make sure that these stocks were only sold domestically in the states that allow it, and none of these issues affected food qualified for export to the UK.

 

So basically, the lower health standard claims are dubious. What is clear is that the EU must invoke protectionism in order to keep their farmers from being undercut by lower cost American farms, and they do this through some rather questionable health claims. 

 

The world would be so much easier if everyone was simply honest, but when was the last time you saw a government being honest with its citizens? If they were truthful, some might disagree with them, and they couldn't have that. In the middle ages, kingdoms turned to mages in order to spread propaganda, and those in the court most skilled at influencing the minds and behavior of the peasants were called "magicians". Today, governments have media organizations to perform that feat. But it is the same thing in the end.

 

[Enki]

19 hours ago, Loiner said:

21 hours ago, kingdong said:

 

The UK fishing industry would grow significantly without even trying or doing anything extra. Simply ditching the EU quotas would permit them to keep all they catch. 

For a few years, and then you have no catch anymore. Or why exactly do you think there are quotas?

 

[Enki]

15 hours ago, izod10 said:

One quarter of Spains working population are engaged in FISH    Wiki..  more than keen  their livelihood

Yes, and they are so keen, they row over to Cornwell every night, fish .... and row back to Spain ...

 

[Enki]

10 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

the same nations that get caught most often by the Royal Navy and Irish Navy illegally fishing

Unlikely. Then the fishing company would be closed pretty soon, no idea what strawman you are burning here.

[TheDark]

11 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

This piqued my curiosity the first time I heard it as well. It is mostly referred to pejoritavely as "chlorinated chickens".  I was very curious to know more, so I did a little investigation. I am far from an expert on this, but here is what I was able to uncover, and I believe it is as free from bias as I could get. EU law for farming is based not only on cleanliness and health standards, but also on values for animal rights. Since animal rights is a value not universally shared globally however, the EU needs to find some way to introduce FUD making their policies superior even for those who don't share their values. They did this by invoking cleanliness standards, and specifically maligning chlorinated chickens as an example.

 

The problem is, it appears that from an unbiased health perspective there is absolutely no difference in the end between a US chicken that has been cleaned by chlorinating, and an EU chicken that has been raised according to stricter controls regarding population density. However, allowing competition by US farmers employing higher density chicken populations and killing the bacteria at the end with chlorine would put EU farmers following EU regulations at a serious disadvantage. Thus, the whole "chlorinated chicken" debacle.

 

Note that there are caveats to this. Antibiotics are more heavily used in the US system, leading to a faster buildup of resistance and thus there is a hidden cost to the US system that is being passed into the future. It is not clear how much that actually is, but there have been some attempts to quantify this. Much like global warming though, it is a future problem that today merely represents a value choice, rather than a genuine immediate health concern. Since the EU can't count on everyone accepting their values, again they have to try and turn it into a health scare, which doesn't hold up under close scrutiny.

 

There are also some US policies, such as GMO feed, which are allowed in some states in the USA, but are so heavily regulated by states already that it would be very easy to make sure that these stocks were only sold domestically in the states that allow it, and none of these issues affected food qualified for export to the UK.

 

So basically, the lower health standard claims are dubious. What is clear is that the EU must invoke protectionism in order to keep their farmers from being undercut by lower cost American farms, and they do this through some rather questionable health claims. 

 

The world would be so much easier if everyone was simply honest, but when was the last time you saw a government being honest with its citizens? If they were truthful, some might disagree with them, and they couldn't have that. In the middle ages, kingdoms turned to mages in order to spread propaganda, and those in the court most skilled at influencing the minds and behavior of the peasants were called "magicians". Today, governments have media organizations to perform that feat. But it is the same thing in the end.

 

While I'm not against GMO per se, if it's done to increase the growth in the way it doesn't harm the animals or us. When GMO is done to make some crops to be immune to the pesticides, which kill all other plantlife, I'm dead against GMO.

 

This is why we need comprehensive tests and yes, the boring steps to make sure the food we eat is safe for both of us and to the environment we and our grandchildren live in.

 

US chlorinates chicken, because the places where the chicken are grown are way below standards of hygiene, EU defines. USA model is: The cheaper, the better, while EU requires quality. 

 

Still USA has multiple times more salmonella etc cases compared to what is in EU.

 

USA model is cheap and produces cheaper, yet way lower quality food with lower safety for us people, along with lower care of the animals. 

 

Pushing antibiotics to the animals to control infections is one thing, which is way better controlled in the EU. Nobody wishes to live in the world, where antibiotics are no longer useful when the bacteria has learned to become resistant to all antibiotics. That is a real fear. 

 

But the biggest problem with food from the USA is the use of hormones to make the cows, chicken and pork to grow faster and to grow bigger muscles. 

 

These hormones can transfer to us from the meat we eat. We are what we eat becomes reality.

 

Now take a look at USA. How fat and agressive the people across the big bond has become. 

 

That would be one helluva price to pay for accepting 'chlorinated chicken' from the USA.

[fruitman]

48 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

This piqued my curiosity the first time I heard it as well. It is mostly referred to pejoritavely as "chlorinated chickens".  I was very curious to know more, so I did a little investigation. I am far from an expert on this, but here is what I was able to uncover, and I believe it is as free from bias as I could get. EU law for farming is based not only on cleanliness and health standards, but also on values for animal rights. Since animal rights is a value not universally shared globally however, the EU needs to find some way to introduce FUD making their policies superior even for those who don't share their values. They did this by invoking cleanliness standards, and specifically maligning chlorinated chickens as an example.

 

The problem is, it appears that from an unbiased health perspective there is absolutely no difference in the end between a US chicken that has been cleaned by chlorinating, and an EU chicken that has been raised according to stricter controls regarding population density. However, allowing competition by US farmers employing higher density chicken populations and killing the bacteria at the end with chlorine would put EU farmers following EU regulations at a serious disadvantage. Thus, the whole "chlorinated chicken" debacle.

 

Note that there are caveats to this. Antibiotics are more heavily used in the US system, leading to a faster buildup of resistance and thus there is a hidden cost to the US system that is being passed into the future. It is not clear how much that actually is, but there have been some attempts to quantify this. Much like global warming though, it is a future problem that today merely represents a value choice, rather than a genuine immediate health concern. Since the EU can't count on everyone accepting their values, again they have to try and turn it into a health scare, which doesn't hold up under close scrutiny.

 

There are also some US policies, such as GMO feed, which are allowed in some states in the USA, but are so heavily regulated by states already that it would be very easy to make sure that these stocks were only sold domestically in the states that allow it, and none of these issues affected food qualified for export to the UK.

 

So basically, the lower health standard claims are dubious. What is clear is that the EU must invoke protectionism in order to keep their farmers from being undercut by lower cost American farms, and they do this through some rather questionable health claims. 

 

The world would be so much easier if everyone was simply honest, but when was the last time you saw a government being honest with its citizens? If they were truthful, some might disagree with them, and they couldn't have that. In the middle ages, kingdoms turned to mages in order to spread propaganda, and those in the court most skilled at influencing the minds and behavior of the peasants were called "magicians". Today, governments have media organizations to perform that feat. But it is the same thing in the end.

 

Hmm well i don't need no chlorinated chicken i guess...i prefer natural chicken but not those skinny ones they have here in BKK in the isan chicken restaurants.

 

I think Europeans care more about healthy food than Americans do (in general). Well, why can't they both grow their own chickens? 

[evadgib]

@Rookiescot Dont forget to inc Tom MaClean's Rockall; given he's one of ours ????

Edited March 3, 2020 by evadgib

[vinny41]

12 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

read the OP carefully,

having frogs and others fishing in UK waters is within what the lass is stating

 

 

20 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

dunno, but reading the OP

letting the frogs fish in UK waters is within what she says in the OP

 

 

3 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

have been the text twice, syllable by syllable

it is quite cear that she does not say what you claim;

 

"made it clear they will be no trade off or side deals link to fishing"

 

that semantics cannot be found in the OP

 

the words in the OP are carefully chosen to allow for some frogs while at the same time staying within the text in the OP

 

Here are the exact words quoted in the op regarding fishing

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will not sell out its fishermen as part of a trade deal with the European Union, nor will it lower its food standards for a trade agreement with the United States, British International Trade Secretary Liz Truss said on Monday.

“We are not going to trade away our fishing in a deal with the EU or any other negotiating partner for that matter,” Truss said. “We are going to get a deal with the EU that does not involve selling out our fishing.”

 

There nothing in her words that indicated that she is implying in your words "having frogs and others fishing in UK waters is within what the lass is stating

 

[tomacht8]

16 hours ago, izod10 said:

One quarter of Spains working population are engaged in FISH    Wiki..  more than keen  their livelihood

Again posting false data.

"25 % of Spains working Population is engaged in FISH."

This statement is wrong and absolute nonsense.

Edited March 3, 2020 by tomacht8

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Oh this is good stuff.

If Scotland goes independent then you think England can run roughshod over international laws?

Seriously?

Might add it didn't end well the last time you guys tried it. 

Honestly there should be some TV award for most ludicrous post of the year.  

Well, you should be a sure bet.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, TheDark said:

While I'm not against GMO per se, if it's done to increase the growth in the way it doesn't harm the animals or us. When GMO is done to make some crops to be immune to the pesticides, which kill all other plantlife, I'm dead against GMO.

 

This is why we need comprehensive tests and yes, the boring steps to make sure the food we eat is safe for both of us and to the environment we and our grandchildren live in.

 

US chlorinates chicken, because the places where the chicken are grown are way below standards of hygiene, EU defines. USA model is: The cheaper, the better, while EU requires quality. 

 

Still USA has multiple times more salmonella etc cases compared to what is in EU.

 

USA model is cheap and produces cheaper, yet way lower quality food with lower safety for us people, along with lower care of the animals. 

 

Pushing antibiotics to the animals to control infections is one thing, which is way better controlled in the EU. Nobody wishes to live in the world, where antibiotics are no longer useful when the bacteria has learned to become resistant to all antibiotics. That is a real fear. 

 

But the biggest problem with food from the USA is the use of hormones to make the cows, chicken and pork to grow faster and to grow bigger muscles. 

 

These hormones can transfer to us from the meat we eat. We are what we eat becomes reality.

 

Now take a look at USA. How fat and agressive the people across the big bond has become. 

 

That would be one helluva price to pay for accepting 'chlorinated chicken' from the USA.

 

you were going OK for a while

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Enki said:

Unlikely. Then the fishing company would be closed pretty soon, no idea what strawman you are burning here.

not under EU law they don't.

[Monomial]

1 hour ago, TheDark said:

While I'm not against GMO per se, if it's done to increase the growth in the way it doesn't harm the animals or us. When GMO is done to make some crops to be immune to the pesticides, which kill all other plantlife, I'm dead against GMO.

 

This is why we need comprehensive tests and yes, the boring steps to make sure the food we eat is safe for both of us and to the environment we and our grandchildren live in.

 

US chlorinates chicken, because the places where the chicken are grown are way below standards of hygiene, EU defines. USA model is: The cheaper, the better, while EU requires quality. 

 

Still USA has multiple times more salmonella etc cases compared to what is in EU.

 

USA model is cheap and produces cheaper, yet way lower quality food with lower safety for us people, along with lower care of the animals. 

 

Pushing antibiotics to the animals to control infections is one thing, which is way better controlled in the EU. Nobody wishes to live in the world, where antibiotics are no longer useful when the bacteria has learned to become resistant to all antibiotics. That is a real fear. 

 

But the biggest problem with food from the USA is the use of hormones to make the cows, chicken and pork to grow faster and to grow bigger muscles. 

 

These hormones can transfer to us from the meat we eat. We are what we eat becomes reality.

 

Now take a look at USA. How fat and agressive the people across the big bond has become. 

 

That would be one helluva price to pay for accepting 'chlorinated chicken' from the USA.

 

That is certainly the EU's story, and the fact that you can state it means they have done a good job. I encourage you to dig a little bit deeper though, and you may find some of those claims are not nearly as well established as you would be led to believe.  Take the following sentence from your post:

 

Quote

 

But the biggest problem with food from the USA is the use of hormones to make the cows, chicken and pork to grow faster and to grow bigger muscles.

These hormones can transfer to us from the meat we eat. We are what we eat becomes reality.

 

 

This sounds completely reasonable. The problem is, if this were the actual issue, it could easily be resolved by simply requiring the final product to meet certain standards. E.g. levels of hormone x in 1 kg of pork have to be lower than this stated criteria.  But that is not what the EU does. Instead, they try to control the process of producing meat. Why do you think they do that? It isn't because there is no other way to satisfy the concern that your meat might be laden with hormones. Tests like that could easily be run, and US farmers could easily produce meat for export that met any criteria the EU might require. 

 

But the actual problem is that in this scenario US production methods would still be cheaper than EU methods, again because the EU includes many rules that are designed not for safety or health reasons, but instead for animal rights and animal welfare. These are values though, and they don't translate well to bottom line economics. So the EU is forced to try and conflate health and safety with animal rights in order to justify their policies.

 

And based on your response above, and how many people agree with you, they have done an excellent job of it. That's fine. The EU is allowed to do whatever they want, and people are allowed to eat whatever they want. But when you really start to pull apart the arguments, you find they aren't actually based on reality the way it is presented to you.

 

 

 

 

[CG1 Blue]

4 hours ago, TheDark said:

Are you saying these people from mostly from Eastern Europe, are the kind of people Brexiteers wish to do business with?

 

I mean, one of the brexiteer talking points was that 'free' England is able to do trade deals with emerging Asian countries, whose economies are growing fast. Quite like the Eastern European countries.

 

Do try to to make your mind, what you actually want. Being all grumpy without any ideas how to improve situation is quite useless. 

There is real economic growth in Asian and other emerging economies, and then there is the type of growth you see in Eastern Europe which is a result of EU subsidies and homogenisation (at the expense of other EU countries). Two different things. 

[CG1 Blue]

4 hours ago, TheDark said:

I'm pretty sure England would not dream to threaten an EU country like that. After all England is just a small and ever diminishing country / culture next to giants. 

 

Scotland will be fine as part of the EU family.

Says a man who's too embarrassed of to admit which country he's from...????

[david555]

 

Britain tells the EU: we shall not sell out our fishermen

 

Explain that to the city ......good luck with that..????

Edited March 3, 2020 by david555

[TheDark]

11 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Says a man who's too embarrassed of to admit which country he's from...????

He??

[TheDark]

30 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

There is real economic growth in Asian and other emerging economies, and then there is the type of growth you see in Eastern Europe which is a result of EU subsidies and homogenisation (at the expense of other EU countries). Two different things. 

Have you ever met a lazy Chinese? Have you ever met a lazy Pole?

 

Me neither. 

[vinny41]

9 minutes ago, TheDark said:

Have you ever met a lazy Chinese? Have you ever met a lazy Pole?

 

Me neither. 

You need to get out more

But at home, Poles do not consider themselves hardworking. Some even suggest that communism has created a nation of lazy bones.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/08/europe-news-poland

[izod10]

What we have here is a stand-off,way out is...yes a poll/election

 

1 England gets a say     scotland ejected from union as of yesterday

 

 2 scotland goes to the polls,on condition England play scotland at Hampden Park couple of days before election ( England bribed to lose)  pubs in scotland stay open for straight 72 hours before election

 

 3 Shetland promised a poll on remaining with scotland after  election result

 Win -win result for everyone

[Laughing Gravy]

4 hours ago, david555 said:

 

Britain tells the EU: we shall not sell out our fishermen

 

Explain that to the city ......good luck with that..????

It should also add that the Dutch, Spanish and French fishing industries are going to be decimated. Explain that to each country.

 

But they already know that and why Macron and the like are doing their best to stop the UK taking back control of one of the worse ever policies imposed by the EU on the UK.

 

Before you start, yes Heath, Major and Blair sold us down the river so to speak (pun intended) and should be in prison for those that are still alive.

[Rookiescot]

8 hours ago, evadgib said:

Well done you're getting the idea. Now superimpose the N Sea oil & gas fields and the best fishing grounds...

 

BTW: The only people who believe your exceptionalism baloney are those that constantly ram it down the throats of everyone else the silent majority. A good number of those support the SNP.

Go find your own maps. I am not your secretary.

[izod10]

34 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Go find your own maps. I am not your secretary.

Not quite so sunshine,  straw poll years ago Shetland /Orkney voted they would want segregation from scotland if independent.   Shetland and scotland are just geographic areas, and only administration as obv. scotland are closer.........and as...well...most oil/fish lie within Shetlands waters.

   The dirks will be stabbin' those sporrans  (or whatever they are called)  lol    go braveheart go for it,prove you are not pussycats as most think you are   scutland the Brave  lol

Edited March 4, 2020 by izod10

[IvorBiggun2]

My belief is that if the French do not get access to UK waters then, as in the past, their fishermen will blockade the ports. Big trouble ahead if that happens.

[izod10]

3 minutes ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

My belief is that if the French do not get access to UK waters then, as in the past, their fishermen will blockade the ports. Big trouble ahead if that happens.

Never happen, in french minds it will tho,they will be shooting themselves in the foot,Italy ,Spain need access to UK,internal rioting in eu over it, Germany is a direct threat to france if that occurs with UKs  37%. deficit The fatherland will oust them ,like it did 80 years ago

  eire have already shot themselves in both feet, never survive with full brexit exposure

[norfolkc]

On 3/3/2020 at 12:47 AM, Susco said:

 

When I see the Brits here in Thailand happily absorb the Vietnamese Pangasius, because the Brit restaurant owner wrote Cod on the menu, I doubt they know much about fish

Speak for yourself 

[kingdong]

12 hours ago, evadgib said:

Well done you're getting the idea. Now superimpose the N Sea oil & gas fields and the best fishing grounds...

 

BTW: The only people who believe your exceptionalism baloney are those that constantly ram it down the throats of everyone else the silent majority. A good number of those support the SNP.

They,ve already had an election and the fact they couldn,t retain sterling was a deciding factor in the result.