Canyon pauses shipments to UK customers, blaming Brexit uncertainty

Sorry, but no. As I said, this is not the place and I am not putting myself in the firing line (no further any way!!) because it is far too complicated a subject to be reduced to simplistic one-liners and sound bites. This is not an attack, but you have fallen in to the trap yourself by your statement on mis-information on the Pro-Brexit side. These people (all of them, U.K., E.U. the lot) are politicians, they lie for a living and mis-information was piled high on both sides throughout the whole thing and still is.

How about a couple of links to a more complicated, non-soundbite reasons for leaving the EU? I'm looking for information rather than an argument with you.

(Also not an attack, but you're re-inforcing my observation that no-one knows decent arguments)

https://www.soilassociation.org/causes-campaigns/green-brexit/

https://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/183/22/675.2

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/03/uk-to-become-first-c...

Rich_cb wrote:

https://www.soilassociation.org/causes-campaigns/green-brexit/ https://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/183/22/675.2 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/03/uk-to-become-first-c...

Thanks.

Scrapping the Common Agricultural Policy makes sense to me (1st link).

I'm conflicted on whether the EU forces us to export live animals though. I can see how live produce is a clear indicator of freshness and there's certainly lots of shenanigans that happens with meat products (e.g. stick it on a boat, irradiate it and bring it back into port with a nice new sell-by date). Personally, I'd be happier with much less meat production but then I don't eat meat (excepting fish).

I think (not sure) the angle here is that the UK probably couldn't ban live exports as farmers here could complain to the EU.

I can see why the EU needs to allow the trade for smaller states with land borders. My suggestion would be to deal with the specifics: it's the animal suffering we want to stop. The method of transportation isn't relevant though the length of the journey and the conditions during it are.

I'd argue that these things can be fixed from the inside, and I think rich_cb is wrong about this, but I respect the thinking he brings. I just think that we'll get told what we have to do if we want to sell into the EU, and go from small influence to none. Size matters in trade deals.

This debate was so polarising that theorising is no longer possible. We will only know with empirical hindsight who was right. So njblackadder, perhaps that's where some of the comments come from.

Personally, I think it's one of the bigger mistakes the UK has made, BSA bolt-action pointed directly at foot with live round in the chamber and an itchy forefinger at the ready. I blame the Conservative Party for being unable to debate this properly internally, and doing the whole thing as a self-preservation exercise. I regret that some of the politicians I least respect queued up to advocate for it without mentioning their own self interest, and I think truth was the first casualty. I'm not so blinkered that I can't see that both sides weren't exactly clean.

I also regret that this may cause the fracture of the UK, with significant risk of future decline for the northern part of it that I emigrated to 30 years ago.

But we have to make the best of what we have.

My understanding is that it wasn't possible under EU law to ban live exports unilaterally.

It would require a decision at EU level.

I've been opposed to live exports for decades so the fact that we are bringing in a ban as soon as we are able to massively vindicated the vote to leave.

The UK has generally had higher animal welfare standards than the rest of the EU, hopefully we can now push those standards even higher.

CAP and CFP replacements can also hopefully concentrate on animal welfare and environmental improvement.

That sounds like good news to me.

Interview with Boris Johnson in The Telegraph today.

He claims (pinch/bucket of salt alert) that the level playing field clauses will allow the UK to impose tariffs on the EU if our own animal welfare standards exceed theirs (as they already do).

This should allow the UK to strongly influence animal welfare in countries like Denmark and The Netherlands which have a large trade surplus with us in food and also have relatively poor animal welfare standards.

This is exactly the sort of benefit that I hoped Brexit would bring. Good news.

Rich_cb wrote:

Interview with Boris Johnson in The Telegraph today. He claims (pinch/bucket of salt alert) that the level playing field clauses will allow the UK to impose tariffs on the EU if our own animal welfare standards exceed theirs (as they already do).

This should allow the UK to strongly influence animal welfare in countries like Denmark and The Netherlands which have a large trade surplus with us in food and also have relatively poor animal welfare standards. This is exactly the sort of benefit that I hoped Brexit would bring. Good news.

It won't be a quick win, if it is a win at all.

Firstly, while British farmers and producers will claim they want high standards they also don't want the 'red tape' (i.e. regulations, checks) that come with it. Politicians talk of red tape as if it's some kind of hindrance but it's what protects consumers and workers and prevents food poisoning and large scale fraud.

It seems a little strange that this drive for higher food standards comes so soon after 330 Tory MPs voted against a Lords amendment to the Agriculture Bill in October protecting food standards. Just 16 of them voted in favour.

And would you really believe Boris - a proven liar - on food standards after the last 12 months? Or the last 10 years of Conservatives being in power, with cuts to red tape and council services including Environmental Health and Trading Standards departments, the Environment Agency and NRW. Look at what's happened with cycling since the pandemic - even with his cheerful bluster and Grant Shapps' statements, many councils have ignored and in some cases actively worked against his 'drive' to get more people cycling as a result of the pandemic.

They will also have to convince consumers that the higher standards are worth paying for. UK supermarkets, which have the bulk of sales, has so far become something of a 'race to the bottom' with price competition, frequent deals and 2-for-1 type offers, most of which are paid for partly or wholly by the supplier.

Then we have the additional cost of customs checks from 1 January (a huge headache for anyone importing or exporting) that will be paid for in some way by everyone in the chain.

And those exporters may find that the higher standards are not worth anything in many of the countries they supply as they are in the EU and do not want to pay more for our 'gold plating'.

As someone who works in this area, higher food standards, including animal welfare, farming practices and production/processing methods would be fantastic, but I'm sorry to say that I'm not optimistic. I wouldn't get your hopes up.

The UK already has higher food standards than mandated by the EU. There is no need to hope for this, it's a fact.

Whilst in the EU our farmers had to compete with EU farmers who could produce food more cheaply due to those lower standards.

Now we have a legal mechanism to prompt our neighbours to start doing things a bit better.

Lords Amendments etc are mostly just political theatre, designed so that people can say 'you voted against X'. The proof will be in the actual legislation that the government introduces.

Basic comparison of standards here:
https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/sourcing/how-do-uk-food-standards-differ-fro...

Rich_cb wrote:

Basic comparison of standards here: https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/sourcing/how-do-uk-food-standards-differ-fro...

Most of those comparisons are with the USA, Australia or NZ while UK and EU are broadly very similar. Also, it only lists very specific chemicals and practices. There is a lot more to agriculture than those few items!

The UK's organic standards for food are based on the EU standards, partly so that products can be traded across member states without additional certification processes each time it crosses a border. This may change for us after Brexit and depends very much on ministerial decisions. There is already much speculation about what will replace CAP for farm subsidies. I'd be very surprised if the UK government raised its general farming and food standards for no obvious benefit, particularly in the livestock sector, which has for a long time struggled to compete with imports, notably from South America and NZ.

If our standards are already so much higher then why is there so much imported meat in the shops? Why do so few UK customers insist on Red Tractor or grass-fed beef but are happy to buy cheap pork, mince or burgers regardless of country of origin?

Historically, buyers/legislators in a strong bargaining position will persuade others to reduce their own standards if supplying that market rather than increase their own standards to match, just as the big supermarkets do with their suppliers.

We will have to disagree on the value of the recent amendment voted down by the Conservatives. Many Tory MPs will vote for lower standards, some even encourage it as a competitive advantage and simplyfing business operations and 'cutting red tape'. This of course has nothing to do with the big food companies and agribusinesses who pay some MPs large amounts of money - considerably more than their salary - as consultants.

There is a lot of imported meat because the lower standards of the producers translate to lower prices.

Higher animal welfare practices will lead to more expensive meat, that's fairly inevitable, we now have a legal mechanism to encourage our less conscientious competitors to improve their welfare standards benefiting British producers, and the animals of course.

Look at the welfare standards for pigs in Denmark compared to the UK.

Then ask yourself why that Danish bacon is cheaper.

Rich_cb wrote:

Look at the welfare standards for pigs in Denmark compared to the UK.

Then ask yourself why that Danish bacon is cheaper.

That's the wrong question. You should be asking:

Why should anyone spend more to buy British bacon instead of Danish?

Or: why haven't the Danes improved their welfare standards when ours are higher (and our bacon therefore more expensive)? 

Tightening your own standards in the expectation that another country will therefore raise its food standards voluntarily simply to get access to this market (which will be a fraction of that of its neighbours in the EU and those beyond) is, sadly, very likely to be wishful thinking.

It hasn't worked until now so I cannot see how it will suddenly change when the price differential gets even wider. And Boris Johnson talking about it to The Telegraph on Boxing Day will mean absolutely nothing when everyone gets back to reality and getting with business.

As I clearly pointed out in my previous posts we now have a legal mechanism to place tariffs on EU imports if they diverge from our welfare standards.

That ability will allow us to place pressure on countries to raise their welfare standards.

The UK receives 2 thirds of all Danish pork exports. Is that significant enough for you?

If 2 thirds of your product goes to just one country and that country starts asking you to change your practice or face tariffs what would you do?

The reason people should pay more for higher welfare meat is because it is higher welfare meat. It's as simple as that.

Look at the transformation of the egg market. It wasn't long ago that battery eggs were the standard but now it is free range.

It costs more but once people are aware of the differences they are willing to pay more.

The same can happen with pork and other meats.

Brexit gives us the opportunity to drive animal welfare standards higher across Europe.

Rich_cb wrote:

Brexit gives us the opportunity to drive animal welfare standards higher across Europe.

Wishful thinking, I suspect.

Maybe people are paying a few pence more than they were for 6 eggs (and isn't that due to EU rules?) but in contrast there has been significant growth in intensive poultry farming for meat, with its poor welfare standards and significant environmental impact.

Just because the consumer should pay more for something doesn't mean that they will; and you seem to have a unwavering faith in this government's desire for higher food standards that appears to contradict their actions so far.

People have been campaigning for better welfare and production standards for decades yet progress has been painfully slow. We will have a big enough mountain to climb just getting through this pandemic and resuscitating the UK economy before we even consider a pointless 'pork war' with Denmark. In many ways Brexit is only going to make that harder, not easier.

The government have banned live exports as soon as they were legally able to do so upon leaving the EU transition period.

A change that was impossible to make whilst in the EU coming into force almost immediately after the transition period ends.

Reform of agriculture policy within the EU is an almost impossible task. Have a read of some of the comments made by negotiators around the latest CAP reform.

Outside the EU we can change regulations as we see fit and, crucially, pressurise other countries to follow suit using economic leverage. We were unable to apply that leverage whilst in the EU.

If you think improving animal welfare is "pointless" then clearly reforms aren't going to appeal to you but just take a second and familiarise yourself with the conditions on Danish intensive pork farms. Then reconsider whether it's "pointless" to try and improve those conditions.

As battery eggs are still freely available in supermarkets I'm not entirely sure how you think EU rules (which ones?) have any played a part in the public switching to free range?

Rich_cb wrote:

If you think improving animal welfare is "pointless" then clearly reforms aren't going to appeal to you but just take a second and familiarise yourself with the conditions on Danish intensive pork farms. Then reconsider whether it's "pointless" to try and improve those conditions.

I didn't say that and I don't appreciate you trying to twist my words.

As I said before, we will have to disagree since we appear to be looking at it from different perspectives and have differing ideas of this government's likely intentions. You also seem to be interested mainly in animal welfare but as I said before there is far more in food production than that.

Perhaps I'll be proved wrong (and will be glad if that's the case) but only time will tell...

I stated that we could use our new legal powers to pressurise Denmark into raising their welfare standards, this was your response:

Simon E wrote:

We will have a big enough mountain to climb just getting through this pandemic and resuscitating the UK economy before we even consider a pointless 'pork war' with Denmark

If you didn't want it to seem that you considered raising animal welfare standards to be pointless then perhaps you should have chosen your words more carefully.

The government have banned live exports at the first legal opportunity and animal welfare has been included in the 'level playing field' clauses at our insistence. This is good evidence that the government will prioritise animal welfare.

We are now in a far stronger position to raise animal welfare standards across the continent than we were whilst part of the EU. Hopefully this government and subsequent governments can help improve the conditions for animals across the continent.

Rich_cb wrote:

We are now in a far stronger position to raise animal welfare standards across the continent than we were whilst part of the EU. Hopefully this government and subsequent governments can help improve the conditions for animals across the continent.

Sorry, but your posts just read like a Tory party press release.

In reality we have withdrawn ourselves from the influential position we had in Europe are likely to be in a weaker position regarding laws made on the continent than since the 1970s. And when we have a government that is not particularly interested in raising food standards I can't see why they would put energy into it.

If you're really so bothered about animal welfare then don't eat them.

Have we now banned live animal exports?

Could we do that in the EU?

Can we now impose tariffs on countries with lower animal welfare standards?

Could we do that within the EU?

Tell me again about all this influence we gained from being a member...

Rich_cb wrote:

Tell me again about all this influence we gained from being a member...

If you have to ask then you've obviously been asleep for the last 40 years. Though it looks like you're just trolling now. Zzzzzz.....

Gets corrected multiple times and then starts the ad hominems.

Well played...

Hello Rich. The type of response you are recieving and the tone being used is exactly why I didn't bother attempting to put my case to all those 'demanding' that I provide reasons to them for my position - it is utterly pointless. I accepted long ago that I am inferior intellectually and morally to these kind of people, who obviously are always correct in their assumptions and opinions.

I'm nothing if not stubborn so I quite enjoy educating the average 'well informed' Remain voter.

Rich_cb wrote:

I'm nothing if not stubborn so I quite enjoy educating the average 'well informed' Remain voter.

I think it's the word 'educating' that should be in quotes, since you've failed so far.

There is plenty of room for educating people on both sides of the Brexit divide but I'm sure your arrogant stance means that you won't want to admit that.

Did you not learn that, in fact, some EU countries are heavily dependent on the UK for their meat exports?

Did you not learn that, in fact, the UK has higher animal welfare standards than the EU?

Consider yourself educated.

You're welcome.

Good luck with your continued battle Rich. I've given up responding.

Rich_cb wrote:

As I clearly pointed out in my previous posts we now have a legal mechanism to place tariffs on EU imports if they diverge from our welfare standards.

We had a legal mechanism before Brexit - via EU committees, like this one, currently looking at live export welfare:

https://emeeting.europarl.europa.eu/emeeting/committee/en/agenda/202010/...

Whilst there's a slim chance a tariff on bacon might encourage higher standards for pigs - I'm not sure we're going to be able to do much about mink fur farms with that approach.

There was a mechanism but, let's be honest, it didn't work.

Any agricultural reform inside the EU is incredibly difficult. Have a look at the history of CAP reform. It's not been a smooth process.

As the largest market for certain products (eg Danish pork) we now have far more influence on the conditions that those products are produced in than we would ever have had within the EU.

Mink farms are banned in the UK but not in the EU so our influence on that trade is likely to the same whether in or out of the EU.

Rich_cb wrote:

There was a mechanism but, let's be honest, it didn't work.

Well, it kind of did work - albeit slowly, as is the process of any large committee. There are numerous examples of where higher standards have been fought for and implemented under EU law. In fact, much of the leave argument is precisely because they don't like the EU telling them what to do. It can't work and not work at the same time.

But hey-ho, maybe things will get better - I guess we'll find out in time. Now - back to bikes!