Don’t people who live off Iceland turkey twizzlers deserve the same protection from hormone injected poultry as people buying Gressingham duck from Waitrose?
Both of you make a good point re low income consumers which I fully agree with. What I don't agree with is that we need the EU to do this. We can set our own standards. If you don't trust this govt ro do so or they do something appealing to our food standards then we can vote them out at the next GE and replace them with a govt that pledges to do so.Like consumers have the choice to spend their money on cigarettes and alcohol but then we have legislated in the case of the former to at least put some disincentive to that.
Given the choice between the two scenarios you describe (which Iceland might Baylor at) which of those do you think low income consumers will veer towards? Would it be nanny state to ensure some basic standards are maintained?
Both of you make a good point re low income consumers which I fully agree with. What I don't agree with is that we need the EU to do this. We can set our own standards. If you don't trust this govt ro do so or they do something appealing to our food standards then we can vote them out at the next GE and replace them with a govt that pledges to do so.
You’re right. We don’t need the EU to do this but this government refuses to guarantee it and by the next election we could have signed a long term FTA with another country where lower standards are allowed that we can’t go back on.Both of you make a good point re low income consumers which I fully agree with. What I don't agree with is that we need the EU to do this. We can set our own standards. If you don't trust this govt ro do so or they do something appealing to our food standards then we can vote them out at the next GE and replace them with a govt that pledges to do so.
Absolutely, just as if we wish to continue import to and export from the EU of food we will have to adhere to their standards.except we can't - if America or anyone in trade talks see's anything to exploit to get their way they will tell us if you want A then your standards or requirements in sector B will have to be aligned with ours to get the deal - thus our "own" standards won't be our own doing...
Absolutely, just as if we wish to continue import to and export from the EU of food we will have to adhere to their standards.
Totally agree, I also think the retailers that do will waste no time in publicising the ones that undercut them by importing the cheap mutant stuff.and when it comes to foods the vast vast majority in the UK are happy for us to do that and don't want US standards applied.
Not sure if thats totally the case as i dont think he's Irish...If that's true he won't need residency in his second home in Spain because he'll be guaranteed reciprocity because he lives in Ireland. Either way it's a case of I'm alright Jack.
Both of you make a good point re low income consumers which I fully agree with. What I don't agree with is that we need the EU to do this. We can set our own standards. If you don't trust this govt ro do so or they do something appealing to our food standards then we can vote them out at the next GE and replace them with a govt that pledges to do so.
Who knows?There’s lots of things we don’t “need” the EU for but I suspect a lot of time, energy and money will be spent doing our own versions of. Thankfully the economic benefits of going our own way will outweigh those initial costs, er won’t they?
Rules of origin are never to be compromised mate ;-)Brexit will mean we can no longer import thousands of tons of chicken from Brazil and Thailand that have been repackaged in the Netherlands and sold as EU produce. But that's ok - EU inspectors visit the Thai and Brazilian producers once a year to check standards and sometimes even have to stop these imports as a result.