Michel Barnier

ICBM

Snap said:

We've had GM food for generations - selective breeding is the same thing, in principle. Until very recently GM wasn't a thing, so no-one was talking about how many crossbreed processes have been introduced into livestock and crops to remove characteristics, improve appearance, taste, shelf life. The GM we think we are talking about when we slate GM stuff, is merely a more direct short cut to this. Just what is really wrong with GM food? Dig below the sensationalism and misinformation.

"GM" as a term, that is bandied around, applies to a whole spectrum of processes: at its extreme end i don't contend that it isn't good for us, or the planet, but at the opposite end, carefully managed, IMO its not a bad thing at all. E.g. Quorn, that's technically GM. Good stuff that.

You were doing quite well up to the last couple of sentences…

Quorn is dreadful stuff. It's not the same as normal GM food, which is based on things which are edible in their natural form - it's a modified soil fungus. Many people have a serious intolerance to it, including me.

For what it's worth, even Greenpeace seem to have concluded that normal GM food is safe.

prowla

If the more wealthy party in a divorce tried to raise a case that the other one should pay alimony to cover their expenses for the next 5 years, they'd be laughed out of court.

The EU's divorce bill has no basis in law and we (that's us - each individual in this country, out of our own pockets) have no legal or moral obligation to pay a penny.

The EU negotiator bloke blustered that it's not fair that the other 27 countries will have to pay for their planned projects; well, perhaps the other option is that they reconsider their plans.

Arguably, the EU should be paying us for their continued use of the things we have already contributed to.

Ravenous

prowla said:

Arguably, the EU should be paying us for their continued use of the things we have already contributed to.

I've heard this idea mentioned in the news, precisely once. It seems a bit surprising hardly anyone is exploring this angle...

Bidley

Oh good, another Brexit thread - don't forget to leave a wisdom/lol on the posts you agree/disagree with in lieu of an actual discussion.

fields5069

Hmm, like paying for the paint on a company car, and then charging the lease company for continued use of the paint after you've handed the car back?

Budgie

Yay a Brexit thread.... Is it too late to escape before...





Damn! Too late!

Snap

ICBM said:

Snap said:

We've had GM food for generations - selective breeding is the same thing, in principle. Until very recently GM wasn't a thing, so no-one was talking about how many crossbreed processes have been introduced into livestock and crops to remove characteristics, improve appearance, taste, shelf life. The GM we think we are talking about when we slate GM stuff, is merely a more direct short cut to this. Just what is really wrong with GM food? Dig below the sensationalism and misinformation.

"GM" as a term, that is bandied around, applies to a whole spectrum of processes: at its extreme end i don't contend that it isn't good for us, or the planet, but at the opposite end, carefully managed, IMO its not a bad thing at all. E.g. Quorn, that's technically GM. Good stuff that.

You were doing quite well up to the last couple of sentences…

Quorn is dreadful stuff. It's not the same as normal GM food, which is based on things which are edible in their natural form - it's a modified soil fungus. Many people have a serious intolerance to it, including me.

For what it's worth, even Greenpeace seem to have concluded that normal GM food is safe.

Nowt wrong with Quorn, I like it. Its, lab developed, and will have involved a degree of genetic manipulation at some point. My point is that its all very well getting all high horsey about what people call "GM", but the reality is that tons of foodstuffs have been altered, crossbred etc, to develop something that is not naturally occuring - Quorn being one of them. Sort of synthetic in that sense, if you know what I mean.

The complaints about GM are (like lots of this sort of thing) based on ignorance and hysteria. Ooh, you don't want that, its all frankenstein that.....

Take just about any foodstuff on a supermarket shelf - it will have gone through selective breeding to get to its nice perfect shape, colour, shelf life etc. Same principle.

Limehouse_Blues

ToneControl said:

Are the EU experts at trade deals? Look at their record - pathetic, how many significant trade deals have they signed?
The answer is none:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
South Korea is the best one there

But of course, any problems with these current trade talks will be blamed on the UK

Using the WTO’s database of RTAs covering goods and services (http://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicMaintainRTAHome.aspx) I decided to test your assertion by looking at the number of bilateral RTAs that each of China, the USA and the EU have agreed with other G20 members (ie bilateral deals in which their counterparty is one of the 19 sovereign nation states that participate in the G20, or the EU itself (the EU being the 20th member of the G20). Focusing on bilateral deals is the reason that Mexico and Canada don’t appear in the US list. Equally, when it comes to the EU I have ignored the fact that some of its member states (4 if you count the UK) are G20 members.

I focused on G20 members since between them they account for a substantial majority of the world’s population, trade and GDP. These are the guys that a 'great global Britain' will need to woo post Brexit. The findings are interesting and show that the EU currently has twice as many such FTAs than either the US or China. Similarly, when it comes to recent agreements not yet in force, the EU clearly has a better record than either the US or China of sitting down and talking free trade with other G20 members. Equally telling is the fact that the only G20 member the US has tried to strike a deal with recently (albeit that TTIP is now a dead duck) is the EU itself, not any of the other non-EU, non-NAFTA members of the G20 like China, Japan, Brazil or India.

It is preposterous for anyone to claim that the EU’s record on negotiating free-trade agreements is ‘pathetic’. Quite apart from the fact that the EU itself is based upon an FTA that has no qualitative comparator anywhere in the world, the EU has agreed more bilateral FTAs with G20 members than either China or the US - and has more in the pipeline. The also has far more agreements in force with smaller economies than the US or China, which is probably among the reasons the WTO ranks the EU as the world's second largest exporter and importer of goods and the world's single largest exporter and importer of services (excluding intra EU goods and services trade).

CHINA

In force (2): Australia, South Korea

Early announcement at WTO but not in force (0)

USA

In force (2): South Korea, Australia

Early announcement at WTO but not in force (1): EU

EU

In force (4): South Korea, Mexico, South Africa,Turkey

Early announcement at WTO but not in force (5): Canada, India, Indonesia, Japan, US

ICBM

Snap said:

Nowt wrong with Quorn

Apart from causing nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, lowered body temperature, violent shivering and difficulty breathing in a significant number of people.

Jalapeno

Back to Barnier - I think he's a nasty piece of work.  Apparently UK challenged the legality of some of the divorce bill payments, and did so well - he then had a meltdown, followed by the sulky press conference.

Don't like the way he keeps grandstanding to the British press.

ESBlonde

One of the mentionable down sides of GM seeds is said to be the fact that they can be breed sterile. Given that most farmers in Europe buy thier seed anyway means this may not be a big change, however this means that in just a few years the stock of seed may be essentially controlled by the one corporation that grant us the seed at a price they deem fit. If there is a shortage of traditional 'heritage' seed, then the world could be held to ransom!

However a draught resistant crop that thrives in Sub saharen Africa and isn't susceptable to known plant infection is undoubtedly a wonderful thing.

So we just need to take care and retain some heritage breading stock of animals and crop seed.

ToneControl

Limehouse_Blues said:

ToneControl said:

Are the EU experts at trade deals? Look at their record - pathetic, how many significant trade deals have they signed?
The answer is none:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
South Korea is the best one there

But of course, any problems with these current trade talks will be blamed on the UK

Using the WTO’s database of RTAs covering goods and services (http://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicMaintainRTAHome.aspx) I decided to test your assertion by looking at the number of bilateral RTAs that each of China, the USA and the EU have agreed with other G20 members (ie bilateral deals in which their counterparty is one of the 19 sovereign nation states that participate in the G20, or the EU itself (the EU being the 20th member of the G20). Focusing on bilateral deals is the reason that Mexico and Canada don’t appear in the US list. Equally, when it comes to the EU I have ignored the fact that some of its member states (4 if you count the UK) are G20 members.

I focused on G20 members since between them they account for a substantial majority of the world’s population, trade and GDP. These are the guys that a 'great global Britain' will need to woo post Brexit. The findings are interesting and show that the EU currently has twice as many such FTAs than either the US or China. Similarly, when it comes to recent agreements not yet in force, the EU clearly has a better record than either the US or China of sitting down and talking free trade with other G20 members. Equally telling is the fact that the only G20 member the US has tried to strike a deal with recently (albeit that TTIP is now a dead duck) is the EU itself, not any of the other non-EU, non-NAFTA members of the G20 like China, Japan, Brazil or India.

It is preposterous for anyone to claim that the EU’s record on negotiating free-trade agreements is ‘pathetic’. Quite apart from the fact that the EU itself is based upon an FTA that has no qualitative comparator anywhere in the world, the EU has agreed more bilateral FTAs with G20 members than either China or the US - and has more in the pipeline. The also has far more agreements in force with smaller economies than the US or China, which is probably among the reasons the WTO ranks the EU as the world's second largest exporter and importer of goods and the world's single largest exporter and importer of services (excluding intra EU goods and services trade).

CHINA

In force (2): Australia, South Korea

Early announcement at WTO but not in force (0)

USA

In force (2): South Korea, Australia

Early announcement at WTO but not in force (1): EU

EU

In force (4): South Korea, Mexico, South Africa,Turkey

Early announcement at WTO but not in force (5): Canada, India, Indonesia, Japan, US

thanks for doing some research, most don't bother

The argument typically offered is that "the EU do everything better than the UK alone could ever hope to achieve"
At face value this is clearly ridiculous - the UK is a G7 country with a long history of democracy, trading and law, and clearly less contention from 27 other countries will enable easier decision making (since in the UK, there are not 27 states with conflicting interests who can veto any agreement)

I'm not sure your research is complete enough:
what we are trying to see is "are the EU better than everyone else at negotiating FTAs, or average, or worse"
The publicity during Brexit arguments claimed that the tiny UK could never match the amazing deals the EU had agreed.

Looking at this list of bilateral FTAs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_free-trade_agreements#ASEAN

CARICOM is doing well: 10 FTAs with G20 countries

• Australia
• Canada
• China
• European Union
• India
• Japan
• Mexico
• Turkey
• South Korea
• United States

EFTA seems to have the same main ones as the EU

Japan has 3

Mexico has 4

Serbia has 4

Singapore has 7

South Korea has 7

Switzerland has 7

so I'd maintain my assertion that the EU's negotiating has been piss-poor, nowhere near as successful as many individual states, both larger and smaller than the UK. 

and incidentally, South Africa is not a major economy, so you should downgrade the EU significant FTAs to 3


Anyway, do you feel that the UK can't negotiate as many or more FTAs than the EU?

crunchman

It's not just whether you can negotiate a FTA.  It's what it contains.  You can negotiate an agreement that allows free trade in fresh dinosaur faeces, but but it wouldn't be a lot of use.

I read about a potential EU trade deal with some Latin American countries that got scuppered because the Italians vetoed it to protect their tomato growers.  We don't need to protect tomato growers, or orange growers, or olive growers.  Without interests like that, we can negotiate deals that are much more wide ranging.

Fretwired

RandallFlagg said:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/michel-barnier-david-davis-brexit-educational-teach-uk-leaving-single-market-negotiations-a7927336.html

How long will the EU continue to back Barnier to lead negotiations if this stalemate over the Brexit bill amount doesn't get resolved?

Ask Merkel. He can't fart without permission and that's the real problem. Nothing will happen until she wins the German election and then bang - as if by magic a deal will be done.

Evilmags

Whatever they claim their is no EU SA free trade. Tax on a car import is 100% in SA.

RandallFlagg

prowla said:

If the more wealthy party in a divorce tried to raise a case that the other one should pay alimony to cover their expenses for the next 5 years, they'd be laughed out of court.

The EU's divorce bill has no basis in law and we (that's us - each individual in this country, out of our own pockets) have no legal or moral obligation to pay a penny.

The EU negotiator bloke blustered that it's not fair that the other 27 countries will have to pay for their planned projects; well, perhaps the other option is that they reconsider their plans.

Arguably, the EU should be paying us for their continued use of the things we have already contributed to.

I like the cut of your jib @prowla well said. Fuck 'em and their bill is what I say. I have run many negotiations over the last 5 years and when the other party starts making loud noises and getting all emotional it's typically a smokescreen because they have nothing and no basis for their position.

Barnier should wind his neck in, sit down, get trade deals on the table and we'll look to introduce a settlement figure as leverage to get the deals we want. We're in control here, without the UK money they are fooked and all his wind and piss and obstinacy just makes that even more obvious.

Limehouse_Blues

ToneControl said:

Limehouse_Blues said:

ToneControl said:

Are the EU experts at trade deals? Look at their record - pathetic, how many significant trade deals have they signed?
The answer is none:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
South Korea is the best one there

But of course, any problems with these current trade talks will be blamed on the UK

Using the WTO’s database of RTAs covering goods and services (http://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicMaintainRTAHome.aspx) I decided to test your assertion by looking at the number of bilateral RTAs that each of China, the USA and the EU have agreed with other G20 members (ie bilateral deals in which their counterparty is one of the 19 sovereign nation states that participate in the G20, or the EU itself (the EU being the 20th member of the G20). Focusing on bilateral deals is the reason that Mexico and Canada don’t appear in the US list. Equally, when it comes to the EU I have ignored the fact that some of its member states (4 if you count the UK) are G20 members.

thanks for doing some research, most don't bother

The argument typically offered is that "the EU do everything better than the UK alone could ever hope to achieve"
At face value this is clearly ridiculous - the UK is a G7 country with a long history of democracy, trading and law, and clearly less contention from 27 other countries will enable easier decision making (since in the UK, there are not 27 states with conflicting interests who can veto any agreement)

I'm not sure your research is complete enough:
what we are trying to see is "are the EU better than everyone else at negotiating FTAs, or average, or worse"
The publicity during Brexit arguments claimed that the tiny UK could never match the amazing deals the EU had agreed.

Looking at this list of bilateral FTAs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_free-trade_agreements#ASEAN

CARICOM is doing well: 10 FTAs with G20 countries

• Australia
• Canada
• China
• European Union
• India
• Japan
• Mexico
• Turkey
• South Korea
• United States

EFTA seems to have the same main ones as the EU

Japan has 3

Mexico has 4

Serbia has 4

Singapore has 7

South Korea has 7

Switzerland has 7

so I'd maintain my assertion that the EU's negotiating has been piss-poor, nowhere near as successful as many individual states, both larger and smaller than the UK. 

and incidentally, South Africa is not a major economy, so you should downgrade the EU significant FTAs to 3


Anyway, do you feel that the UK can't negotiate as many or more FTAs than the EU?

It's not about the sheer numbers of agreements. The terms of the deals and their scope are rather important.

I can't believe you wheeled out CARICOM as an example of someone 'doing better' than the EU yet in virtually the same breath panned South Africa. SA is something like the 30th largest economy in the world, many times larger than all CARICOM economies put together! If you want to draw comparisons with the EU, look at the US and China alone as they're the only two economies remotely close in size to the EU. Even Japan is a comparative minnow while ASEAN's GDP is a fraction of the EU's.

Bananas and other agricultural products are probably CARICOM's main exports. Their trade profile is pretty simple so it's no surprise they have lots of RTAs signed. When countries sit round the table with CARICOM there's not a whole lot to talk about (except fruit).

Anyway, to answer your question I think there's every likelihood that the UK will, post Brexit succeed in negotiating at least as many RTAs as the EU already has with non-EU countries. The UK will spend at least a decade doing little else. However, the UK will struggle to improve on the terms of those agreements with non EU countries and will be lucky to secure the same terms as the EU - because to any international counterparty, access to the smaller UK market now and always will be, worth less than access to the much larger economy of the EU.

Whichever way we slice it (and leaving aside whatever beef anyone might have around sovereignty or the CJEU or immigration or whatever else) anyone who truly believes that leaving the EU is actually going to enhance the UK's international trade profile is clearly incapable of rational thought.

Remember that bilateral agreements that count as RTAs for WTO purposes don't give you the full picture for trade. There are over 700 bilateral agreements (most of which are not actually RTAs but which nevertheless contribute to trade) between the EU and non EU countries that span areas like regulatory co-operation, fisheries and agriculture, transport, customs and energy (including nuclear).

The UK is going to lose the benefit of all those agreements when it leaves the EU and will spend years (and inordinate amounts of taxpayer money) simply trying to recreate them. Post Brexit the UK is going to be running very hard indeed just to stand still.

holnrew

ICBM said:

Snap said:

Nowt wrong with Quorn

Apart from causing nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, lowered body temperature, violent shivering and difficulty breathing in a significant number of people.

That doesn't seem very balanced, the majority of people aren't allergic. It's a very sustainable way to get protein in your diet and comes in loads of tasty variants. If you don't like it, don't eat it. Bit disingenuous to call it nasty based on your own experience.

Evilmags

GDP per head, not gross GDP is how you measure things. So the Africa has a long way to go to match Caribbean living standards. Despite a massive natural resource advantage.

Limehouse_Blues

Evilmags said:

GDP per head, not gross GDP is how you measure things. So the Africa has a long way to go to match Caribbean living standards. Despite a massive natural resource advantage.

Thanks. I'm well aware of the difference. Which is the appropriate metric depends on what you want to measure. In this context GDP per capita is not the appropriate metric. We're not interested in average wealth or living standards but sheer heft in international trade. There is some disparity between per capita GDP in China and the EU yet it's quite sensible to treat them as comparators when considering their respective contributions to international trade.