Forum menu
As far as I understand it (which is very....very little) this is more a "we plan/hope/wish to do this for trade between our two nations", it needs ratifying by congress in the U.S. and our Parliament.
The way trump is declaring it as a "trade deal" is akin to doing the first mile of the West Highland Way and declaring to everyone that you've walked it..........then moving on to the next thing.........SQUIRREL 🤪
........the truth is rather more involving for the next 100 or so days till the deal is through congress.
2 deals Kier probably cant believe his luck, a deal that excludes hormone fed beef is not good for American farmers, Trump must have been incredibly desperate to fold on that, i wonder if he'll stick to it if his farmers object, the art of the repeal?
Mandelson will be chortling into his Bollinger tonight
The big test now is whether he can't forge a better deal with the EU
Yep, fascist bully's always go away if you give in to them, they never come back and demand more.
might make us feel better but going against trump would be insane economically. It’s probably the only thing Starmer got right.
2 deals Kier probably cant believe his luck, a deal that excludes hormone fed beef is not good for American farmers, Trump must have been incredibly desperate to fold on that, i wonder if he'll stick to it if his farmers object, the art of the repeal?
Mandelson will be chortling into his Bollinger tonight
The big test now is whether he can't forge a better deal with the EU
There's a lot of talk about the youth mobility scheme with the EU...
It's fundamentally ageist and possibly incompatible with equal opportunity law... But "shhh.." one step at a time! 😉
Not sure which thread this belongs in, but apparently it's not a trade deal with the US, as that would have to go through Congress.
Seems all we've got is a reduction on some tariffs and plans for more talks
Seems all we've got is a reduction on some tariffs
reductions on tariffs that would have been death blow for uk steel and car manufacturing
that Trump is so desperate hes trying to big it up as a trade deal is illuminating in itself
starmer has got quite lucky, badenochs 'shafted' response came across as rather bitter
that Trump is so desperate hes trying to big it up as a trade deal is illuminating in itself
starmer has got quite lucky, badenochs 'shafted' response came across as rather bitter
Sorry, my post wasn't clear, I think we've got a result out of it.
As you say, the fact that Trump is making a big fuss at backing down on his stupid tariffs is quite telling.
It has also backed Badenoch into a corner and undermined Farages "pals with Trump" charade.
Borh sides need a deal to show the public hence the announcement before the detail.
However politically Trump needs it more because of his absurd claims and I suspect the uk negotiators are capable of running rings round their counterparts
I think there is still a significant chance it collapses.
Borh sides need a deal to show the public hence the announcement before the detail.
However politically Trump needs it more because of his absurd claims and I suspect the uk negotiators are capable of running rings round their counterparts
I think there is still a significant chance it collapses.
I suppose if trumps breakfast Big Mac has gherkins on it when he specifically asked for no salad...
That could really throw a spanner in the negociations.
However politically Trump needs it more because of his absurd claims and I suspect the uk negotiators are capable of running rings round their counterparts
Yeah, Davis and Frost were brilliant, so good I'm sure Starmer can borrow them from the Tories. they ran rings around that counterpart Barnier. 🤠 The US doesn't need the deal more, Starmer does because of JRL which has been promised 100 000 cars.
Expect Europe to put the same tarifs on the UK as the US to prevent the UK being a back door. It's a trade war remember.
Why would Europe put tariffs on the uk as a result of this "deal"?
It doesn't make any sense
Even if the UK had the best negotiators in the world, how do you dress this one up?
US: We want unrestricted access for hormone fed beef.
UK: Blah, blah, blah, we could replace check A with check B, percentage of hormone level X moves to Y.
US: We are 8 times bigger than you. We want unrestricted access for US beef.
The stuff that is being written off as detail in this story is what used to be called a treaty. What we have so far is a vague statement of intent, suspiciously light on detail but ready for the 80th anniversary of VE Day. Like any supposed deal with a bully it will mostly be what the bully wants it to be.
And even if it isn't, and the UK negotiates a fantastic package of detail...
Trump is a big enough **** to ignore it anyway. Who is the UK going to say "but, teacher" to?
The only thing Trump takes notice of is power. The US economy is 8 times the size of the UK. If the UK was in the EU, the US economy would be about 1.5 times the size. This will play out accordingly.
It is pretty much how he arrived at his tariffs in the first place.
The US economy is 8 times the size of the UK. If the UK was in the EU, the US economy would be about 1.5 times the size.
And yet the UK has been able to negotiate and reduce tariffs while the EU hasn't. Being smaller and more agile seems to be an advantage in this case.
We want unrestricted access for hormone fed beef.
Always curious about the outrage about this and chlorinated chicken. Have you seen the shite that people in this country already eat? We're hardly paragons of healthy eating and lifestyles. We probably should put our own house in order before we start lecturing others about their food standards.
PS. Allowing US beef into the UK seems to me to be Starmer's revenge for all the nonsense about farmer's inheritance tax. He's already lost that cohort of the electorate (not that he ever had it) so not much for him to lose by not defending their interests.
Always curious about the outrage about this and chlorinated chicken.
It's largely to do with undercutting farmers who have to comply (quite rightly) with higher standards of animal welfare. It won't affect the butcher I buy my meat from but the processed food industries will be rubbing their grubby hands together.
It's largely to do with undercutting farmers who have to comply (quite rightly) with higher standards of animal welfare.
Well if the price of saving tens of thousands of jobs in the automotive and steel industries is farmers being a bit poorer then so be it. They can hardly complain about a PM they despise not being too motivated to fight their corner.
Chlorinated chicken isn't a problem, the EU's own reports underline that point. What is a problem are the poorer quality production methods that are then masked by chlorination.
Unprecedented market access for British farmers with protections on food standards maintained (my emphasis)
Hormone-produced beef is supposedly a UK red line and if we import that then we can forget about any future agreement with the EU. Neither the processed food industry nor any other will be getting it,
In a win for both nations, we have agreed new reciprocal market access on beef – with UK farmers given a quota for 13,000 metric tonnes. There will be no weakening of UK food standards on imports. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/landmark-economic-deal-with-united-states-saves-thousands-of-jobs-for-british-car-makers-and-steel-industry
UK beef import tariffs will be imposed on US beef at 13,000 tonnes, a higher level than previously, but UK farmers benefit from a raised export allowance of 13,000 tonnes
UK people could of course stop eating over processed meals containing beef and just stick to 'actual' beef form their butchers which would be good on various levels. They won't do that though will they.
UK people could of course stop eating over processed meals containing beef and just stick to 'actual' beef form their butchers which would be good on various levels. They won't do that though will they.
dont disagree but a quick google says that a supermarket beef grillsteak costs approx £10/ kg whereas a supermaket beef steak is approx £20-30 /kg
theres a reason that meat is processed, its not just a deliberate ploy to make the nation obesse
i pointed this out on the trump thread but non-hormone fed beef in the US is the rarity and is usually a lot more expensive
80-90% of US beef is hormone fed, which means its mostly organic beef that would be allowed in
that's has a hefty price premium over hormone fed, up to 67% more, not sure how that will be profitable to ship & sell here
EXTENSION.IASTATE.EDU
i can't see American beef farmers being too excited by this
UK people could of course stop eating over processed meals containing beef and just stick to 'actual' beef form their butchers which would be good on various levels.
Or they could stop eating beef altogether and spare the suffering of millions of cattle and do the environment and planet a massive favour but they won't do that either. 😉
I don't think cash strapped Britains are all of a sudden going to start eating anything other than what the supermarket sells them at cheapest possible price.
Globalisation has already done its job. And the consumer has been led down that path through no fault of their own.
In some ways Trump has literally and awkwardly shone a light on the the issue of the race to the bottom. (Not saying he did it for anything other than disruptive reasons.)
But we're already on that journey - the UK ultimately has been ridiculous since leaving the EU in not investing in its own future.
If I were Starmer I'd be looking at what we can do here on our shores with a big green investment lens.
Or they could stop eating beef altogether and spare the suffering of millions of cattle and do the environment and planet a massive favour but they won't do that either. 😉
What would you do?
KIll more than 1.5bn. cows?
Tell 8.2bn people that beef will be off the menu when we've killed every cow?
We could all travel by bicycle, but that won't happen either
Current research is genetic selection of high meat/dairy producing, low-farting cattle fed on supplements to reduce methane emissions further.
Farming is essential to maintain our soil and biodiversity, if for no other reason than farmers irrigating fields and providing water for livestock to survive
The soil condition and biodiversity in the UK peaked about 6000 years ago before man started chopping down the natural post-glacial wooodland.
Farming is essential to maintain our soil and biodiversity, if for no other reason than farmers irrigating fields and providing water for livestock to survive
Farming destroys soil & biodiversity - Farmers are not the custodians of the land, they use it for profit.
Farming is essential to maintain our soil and biodiversity
Soil degradation is one of the most pressing problems facing our planet. More than 80% of the world's farming land is 'moderately or severely eroded', with 75 billion tonnes of soil lost every year.
Over the past half-century, the intensification of agriculture has led to failure of soil structure and organisms, reducing it to little more than ‘dirt’ – a sterile medium in which little can grow without artificial fertilisers. It is a self-perpetuating cycle of destruction and chemical dependence. Without soil organisms and soil structure to retain them, water and nutrients leach away, and the soil compacts and becomes prone to erosion.
https://knepp.co.uk/rewilding/ecosystem-services/soil-restoration/
Double post
Meanwhile at local government level...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g2qxr79gdo
Possibly realised that he might have to do some actual work, meet the constituents, be held accountable...
What would you do?
KIll more than 1.5bn. cows?
Err, you know they're going to be killed anyway? I'd stop breeding more of them then people wouldn't eat them and we wouldn't have to be arguing about it. That's what I'd do. 🙂
Farming is essential to maintain our soil and biodiversity
Amazing how the living planet survived for hundreds of millions of years before farming was invented around 10,000 years ago. Honestly farmers have an amazingly deluded sense of their own importance. 🙄
Err, you know they're going to be killed anyway? I'd stop breeding more of them then people wouldn't eat them and we wouldn't have to be arguing about it. That's what I'd do. 🙂
8.2bn people are going to die anyway. Try making it a policy though...
Amazing how the living planet survived for hundreds of millions of years before farming was invented around 10,000 years ago. Honestly farmers have an amazingly deluded sense of their own importance. 🙄
Substitute "people" for "farmers(ing)"
Farming is essential to maintain our soil and biodiversity, if for no other reason than farmers irrigating fields and providing water for livestock to survive
Bollox
Farming is essential to maintain our soil and biodiversity, if for no other reason than farmers irrigating fields and providing water for livestock to survive
Current soil and current (massively depleted) biodiversity maybe.
But looked at objectively, farming is inherently hostile to biodiversity. Arable is all about creating monocultures. Livestock is preserving prey species until they achieve the desired productivity before being slaughtered. The very fact that farms have been incentivised to do set-aside and have had to be banned from innumerable practices shows this.
That original statement is such horseshit that I wouldn't be surprised to see it being sprayed on a field.
🤦♂️
Don't worry everyone. This is just a mid point on the way to a socialist utopia.
Farming is essential to maintain our soil and biodiversity, if for no other reason than farmers irrigating fields and providing water for livestock to survive
Current soil and current (massively depleted) biodiversity maybe.
But looked at objectively, farming is inherently hostile to biodiversity. Arable is all about creating monocultures. Livestock is preserving prey species until they achieve the desired productivity before being slaughtered. The very fact that farms have been incentivised to do set-aside and have had to be banned from innumerable practices shows this.
That original statement is such horseshit that I wouldn't be surprised to see it being sprayed on a field.
🤦♂️
That original statement is correct, as you said.
Nobody doubts that industrial-scale agriculture promoted by governments around the world is a bad thing, unless you happen to be earning mega£££ from poor practices.
You have to start from the point that for the human race to survive we need farmers and farming and we need to improve our soils and biodiversity, but industrial strength agriculture, fishing, etc is not the way to do it.
There's little point having a discussion if "bollox" and "horseshit" are seen as constructive comments so I'll leave you with this,
Biodiversity relies on agriculture: In the EU, agriculture supports and shapes a wide variety of habitats, plants, pollinators, animals, fungi and microorganisms. According to the European environment agency (EEA), 50% of all species in the EU rely upon on agricultural habitats. The EEA identified 63 habitat types that depend upon, or can profit from, agricultural activities – mainly low-intensity grazing and mowing. https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/cap-my-country/sustainability/environmental-sustainability/biodiversity_en
And this example from the Burren Programme (BP) in Eire
As may be seen above and below, BP Year 6 resulted in a continuation of Year 5’s strong improvement in I-1 scores, continuing a decade long trend of positive environmental performance.
Improved incentives, increased I-2 works and better engagement by more farmers, all contributed to this positive outcome, while mild weather conditions also played a part in the improved grazing regimes. Some farms remain stable in terms of I-1 scores, or have seen slight reductions, which is a reminder that complacency can quickly undo much of the good work done thus far.
It's also relevant to a UK Government thread where they're free to promote farming and fisheries schemes
The Burren eh, I used to go caving there and being a geologist took more than a passing interest in the geology, glaciations and the impact of man on the landscape.
Just a taster from Wiki because if ever there was an example where human activity has turned a lush productive varied landscape barren it's the Burren. It's also a dramatic example of how intensive farming can so degrade soils that the human population it can support declines dramatically. See also the Mediterranean bassin especially on the North African side.
Pollen analysis indicates that in the Mesolithic period of 8000 to 7000 BC The Burren looked completely different from today, with most of the uplands covered in a mixture of deciduous, pine and yew trees. No clear evidence of Mesolithic settlements or camp sites in the area has yet been discovered. At the limits of the region, near Lake Inchiquin and at the so-called "Doolin Axe Factory", stone artifacts have been discovered that may be Mesolithic in origin. However, by the Neolithic, c. 4000 BC, settlers had clearly arrived and began changing the landscape through deforestation, likely by overgrazing and burning, and the building of stone walls.
Talking of biodiversity, solar panel farms are also bad for their immediate environment. Resistance to them being built is one thing reform and environmentalists have in common. Reasons differ obviously. Environmentalists don't want them built in biodiverse areas (usually seen as wasted land by those in power) and instead want them on all new buildings by default. Reform don't want solar panel farms because Reform are dicks.
What I do notice around our way is its the big land-owners and estates clearly benefitting from solar panels.
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1921454888766112166?t=sn1eVXzfoJexhoflRZO__A&s=19
Is this it now - modern politics simply arguing about migration numbers and the sentiment of people coming over here taking our jobs?
This debate is unwinnable in this context.
Is this it now - modern politics simply arguing about migration numbers and the sentiment of people coming over here taking our jobs?
It has been since 2016. Well, long long before that, but it's taken up a ridiculous proportion of all the political and media air since then.
Is this it now - modern politics simply arguing about migration numbers and the sentiment of people coming over here taking our jobs?
It has been since 2016. Well, long long before that, but it's taken up a ridiculous proportion of all the political and media air since then.
It's a useful smokescreen/scapegoat for (all) governments failure to deliver on anything else.
Very naive of Labour to think they can win this battle. They need to work on delivering the things that actually matter to people's every day lives, which probably needs needs those migrant workers.
There is a big chunk of the UK population that would still want migrants living in tents even if they were living in opulent luxury themselves. Depressing. And repeated across the developed world.
Talking of biodiversity, solar panel farms are also bad for their immediate environment.
Not really. Typically, new solar farms will deliver increased biodiversity where they're installed.
Talking of biodiversity, solar panel farms are also bad for their immediate environment. Resistance to them being built is one thing reform and environmentalists have in common. Reasons differ obviously.
eh? If its done on farmland that already grows leafy salads or some fruits etc, it's a win/win.
Yep, sheep do like the grassy fields and shade that solar farms provide round here. OK, so not biodiversity as such, but not the end of the farming industry that the Mail has convinced my parents will be the outcome.
Anyway, these solar farms are definitely working, gorgeous crop of sunshine the last couple weeks. Prefer them to the wind farms generating all that wind.