Bill to protect food standards is rejected - You can't trust them - but you still do...

[JohnD]

This does break international law in a specific and limited way

https://www.ft.com/content/a20e7822-468f-4671-8e82-9dc5b5f353d8

"The admission by cabinet minister Brandon Lewis that the government was going to override an international Brexit treaty with the EU relating to Northern Ireland, astonished Tory MPs and caused alarm in Brussels.

The Financial Times revealed on Tuesday that Jonathan Jones, the head of the government’s legal department, had quit in protest at plans to redraw the Brexit withdrawal agreement. Theresa May, former prime minister, led warnings that the move would damage Britain’s standing in the world."

 

[motorbiking]

so it's a foreign government. Which country?

also No

 

[JohnD]

So it's the Boris Johnson government.

As shown above

 

[JohnD]

 

[ellal]

While in any future trade deal the UK might be obliged to import American food but there is no law that says you have to buy it.

Unfortunately the american position is that they reject a 'country of origin' label to inform consumers.
(plus unfortunately many don't have the choice other than eat the cheapest s hit food available!)

And how would you know whether a ready meal or other such staples don't contain sub standard american meat or GM crops?

If it ain't been ruled out, then it's bound to happen...

But then brexiteers knew exactly what they were voting for, didn't they?

 

[SirGalahad]

The bill would have required imported food to comply with UK standards at every stage in its production. Eg the grain fed to cows would have had to comply with UK standards, the straw used in their bedding would have had to comply with UK standards etc etc. Not only that, it would have required all activities involved in the production of the food to comply with our standards and not limited to the food itself, eg noise, water consumption, etc.

Our standards already exceed the EU's standards in a number of food and food production related areas, so that would have prevented some EU foodstuffs being sold here. It would also prevent foods that we don't grow at all eg tea or cocoa being sold here at all.

This intention of this amendment wasn't necessarily wrong, but the way it was written was wrong and impractical and is why it was rejected.

Bearing in mind that our standards already exceed the EU's own standards, and we weren't forced to adopt those higher standards, why are you so adamant that we'll move away from those higher standards?

You really need to have a better understanding of how standards work, how more and more prescriptive standards increase costs, make industries uncompetitive, stifle innovation and sometimes have exactly the opposite effect of their intention. Some and appropriate standards are the right thing to have, but having standards for standards sake can be counterproductive and this amendment is a perfect example of that.

Tell me again - the devil is in the detail - what are the specifics.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8702/CBP-8702.pdf

Rather it would place requirements on a trade deal being laid for ratification under the CRAG Act and refers to “equivalence” in standards rather than adherence to a specific standard.

They argued that the New Clauses could be incompatible with WTO requirements and could fetter UK trade negotiations. - That detail?

pg 107

New Clause 1 and New Clause 2Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Neil Parish (Con) tabled New Clause 2 which had the support of the Committee. This would have required Ministers to confirm to Parliament before laying a Free Trade Agreement under the Constitutional Reform and Government Act (CRAG) 2010 that the trade deal would not allow for lower standard products to be imported. This would not be a blanket ban on imports as this could be non-compliant with World Trade Organisation (WTO) commitments. Rather it would place requirements on a trade deal being laid for ratification under the CRAG Act and refers to “equivalence” in standards rather than adherence to a specific standard. Under the proposed Clause, a trade deal would not be able to be ratified in effect. without the statement on standards being made to the House Speaking to his proposed New Clause, Mr Parish argued that other countries, such as the US, should adopt higher food production standards. He said that:I want great trade deals. I am not a little Englander who will defend our agriculture against all imports—quite the reverse. I think competition is good, but on a level playing field that allows us to produce great food and allows our consumers to have great food, and makes sure that we deliver good agriculture and environment for the future.412Simon Hoare tabled New Clause 1. This would more generally have banned imports of substandard imports under a trade deal. It related to specified standards (to be set out in a UK standards register) and to any imports, not just those in a specified trade treaty as proposed by New Clause 2. New Clause 1 provided that under a Free Trade Agreement food could be imported into the UK: only if the standards to which those goods were produced were as high as, or higher than, standards which at the time of import applied under UK law relating to— (a) animal welfare,(b) protection of the environment,(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and(d) plant health.413Introducing the New Clause, Mr Hoare said that neither it nor New Clause 2 were about “stymieing free trade agreements” as these could deliver “huge potential benefits”. However he said that:There is no merit in deliberately setting out in Government policy the creation of an unlevel playing field. Food imports to this country would be cheap for no reason bar the fact that they were raised to lower standards. [...] Cheap food imports would remain cheap only while there was a viable scale of domestic production

What do you find thats so objectionable?

 

[ellal]

..

 

[Notch7]

The Conservative manifesto pledge 2019:

"The party says food standards and the NHS will not be up for negotiation in any trade talks"

 

[Lower]

Tell me again - the devil is in the detail - what are the specifics.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8702/CBP-8702.pdf

Rather it would place requirements on a trade deal being laid for ratification under the CRAG Act and refers to “equivalence” in standards rather than adherence to a specific standard.

They argued that the New Clauses could be incompatible with WTO requirements and could fetter UK trade negotiations. - That detail?

pg 107

New Clause 1 and New Clause 2Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Neil Parish (Con) tabled New Clause 2 which had the support of the Committee. This would have required Ministers to confirm to Parliament before laying a Free Trade Agreement under the Constitutional Reform and Government Act (CRAG) 2010 that the trade deal would not allow for lower standard products to be imported. This would not be a blanket ban on imports as this could be non-compliant with World Trade Organisation (WTO) commitments. Rather it would place requirements on a trade deal being laid for ratification under the CRAG Act and refers to “equivalence” in standards rather than adherence to a specific standard. Under the proposed Clause, a trade deal would not be able to be ratified in effect. without the statement on standards being made to the House Speaking to his proposed New Clause, Mr Parish argued that other countries, such as the US, should adopt higher food production standards. He said that:I want great trade deals. I am not a little Englander who will defend our agriculture against all imports—quite the reverse. I think competition is good, but on a level playing field that allows us to produce great food and allows our consumers to have great food, and makes sure that we deliver good agriculture and environment for the future.412Simon Hoare tabled New Clause 1. This would more generally have banned imports of substandard imports under a trade deal. It related to specified standards (to be set out in a UK standards register) and to any imports, not just those in a specified trade treaty as proposed by New Clause 2. New Clause 1 provided that under a Free Trade Agreement food could be imported into the UK: only if the standards to which those goods were produced were as high as, or higher than, standards which at the time of import applied under UK law relating to— (a) animal welfare,(b) protection of the environment,(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and(d) plant health.413Introducing the New Clause, Mr Hoare said that neither it nor New Clause 2 were about “stymieing free trade agreements” as these could deliver “huge potential benefits”. However he said that:There is no merit in deliberately setting out in Government policy the creation of an unlevel playing field. Food imports to this country would be cheap for no reason bar the fact that they were raised to lower standards. [...] Cheap food imports would remain cheap only while there was a viable scale of domestic production

What do you find thats so objectionable?

As i said before, the need for equivalence (which is remarkably similar to compliance) that would prevent a number of existing food supplying countries and suppliers, including those in your beloved EU, supplying food to the UK is the problem.

Nothing in your quote changes that.

Also, as you raise it, i don't seed the need for government to put every proposed trade deal before parliament which was the other feature of the amendment. There seems to be a thing at the moment amongst certain MP's and people who don't like they current government where they want parliamentary oversight over everything, probably left over from when everything the government wanted to do had to go to a vote because there hadn't been a proper, stable majority for quite some time and the government had to constantly water stuff down to get anything done.

But I don't find any of the proposed amendment objectionable, that your sensationalism coming to the fore. The process of raising amendments that then get approved or not by a parliamentary vote has been followed and I think the right choice has been made. I think its due process, and there's nothing objectionable about that.

 

[ellal]

i don't seed the need for government to put every proposed trade deal before parliament which was the other feature of the amendment.

Which bit about a 'parliamentary democracy' don't you get?

 

[noseall]

i don't seed the need for government to put every proposed trade deal before parliament

Surely you are not going to forego that beloved sovereignty that you and your fellow quitters so dearly cherish?

 

[JohnD]

Which bit about a 'parliamentary democracy' don't you get?

Lower means that he does not want Parliament to "take back control."

 

[noseall]

Lower means that he does not want Parliament to "take back control."

Why? Quitters have been jumping up and waiving their arms around, in an attempt to take back control.

Get Brexit Done, lol.

 

[Lower]

Which bit about a 'parliamentary democracy' don't you get?

The bit where we all voted to choose a government where there is an existing structure to allow them an amount of scope to run the country without having to put every single thing they do to a parliamentary vote and i don't see the need to extend the scope of what needs to be voted on in parliament.

 

[Lower]

Lower means that he does not want Parliament to "take back control."

Lower means he wants the UK government to have a similar level of control that it had before the Carmeron/Clegg Coalition with the addition of the powers returned from the EU.