What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
“Eustice himself has a long track record of wanting out of the EU, stretching back to his UKIP days. He even quit the May government in protest at her foot-dragging on the issue. Yet Eustice’s sin, like Michael Gove’s, is to be seen as too pragmatic a Brexiteer...” https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1395623042173358081
He was known by the fishermen as “useless eustice”. Not popular. Being captured by big agri is not a great sign.
It's funny how so many of the people who for years were banging on about the "gravity" of trade and saying that trade with countries outside of Europe, despite being a majority of our trade, was inconsequential - are now terrified of the concept of free trade with countries 11,000 miles away.
Why doesn't "gravity" mean a trade deal will be inconsequential? No instead it signs the death warrant on crofting and farming.
Give me a break!
My concern with the deal with Australia is that we didn't negotiate we basically gave them everything they wanted
There was a comment earlier this week that we aren't doing any research as to what we need out of these negotiations as we do them and everything I've seen so far backs up that story.
It looks good but the reality is the deals aren't great for us as we haven't thought through what we really need.
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
Can you give me one good reason why trade with Aus/NZ screws Scottish farming, while trade with 27 nations across Europe is the greatest thing since sliced bread?
Reciprocity and Level Playing Field are two.
EU27 were an excellent market for Scottish produce that Aus/NZ will never be.
Aus/NZ goods can potentially be imported into the UK tariff free that would be illegal if produced here.
Thank you to all the people who provided advice re my son's issues with E.on
He e mailed the CEO directly - stating the various open complaints and his medical issues and how the actions and inactions of E.on were impacting him and how he intended to take matter to press and MP if they did not resolve
Within hours he has had a written response promising someone will contact him within 48 hours and stating that all action against him paused pending resolution.
Lets hope that finally this is heading towards a resolution.
Lovely evening on Wednesday in Edinburgh (not today or yesterday) so took a stroll to the Old Town. Fair few pubs and restaurants still to open and most of the rest looking empty, on a fine evening. Those places would have been heaving two years ago. I guess socialising is a learnt behaviour that we need to relearn.
It must be soul destroying for your business to have survived a year long pandemic, only to come out the other side with empty tables.
The Old Town is surely very much dependant on foreign and domestic tourists, as well as commuters and students. How are things in more residential districts?
I noted that Chiswick was thronged when I visited Fox Jr2 for his birthday, while central London was dead.
Chiswick is thronged because alot of commuters live there. Many haven't gone back to the office yet. So they have got very used to hanging around close to home. Pre lock down, it was interesting how dead Chiswick could be in the evening - most people went out closer to central London.
The November storm outside my flat is so intense it is tearing down wooden fencing
Except, it it not November, it is May 20
I don't know why the weather is so SHITE, but I'm sure it must be YOUR fault!
Sunil, please make it better. It is really fritzing my pitz. The worst May in history, and it happens to be THIS year?
FFS
I just want to walk out into warm sun. Once?
This year's May is on track to be the coldest since 1996. Will it also be in the final year of a long period of Tory hegemony...?
There are ways and means of determining "coldest". CET, daily maxima, daily minimums, etc?
I understand this might be the first Spring ever in London where the highest temperature is recorded in March. Or so I read.
Whatever the data this *feels* like the worst May I can remember, but given that I was completely blitzed from the age of 18 until the mid 90s, and can therefore remember little, your claim of "1996" could be right
You mean you can't remember from about 1939 onwards?!
I've got diaries from when I retired in 2003. I could look through them, but without doing that this May certainly feels as though it's been cold. The sound of lawnmowers has not been heard much!
Up here, that's mostly because it hasn't stopped raining long enough for the grass to dry!
I used to frequently camp in May. My recollection is that this sort of weather was not uncommon, but not a whole month of it
It's funny how so many of the people who for years were banging on about the "gravity" of trade and saying that trade with countries outside of Europe, despite being a majority of our trade, was inconsequential - are now terrified of the concept of free trade with countries 11,000 miles away.
Why doesn't "gravity" mean a trade deal will be inconsequential? No instead it signs the death warrant on crofting and farming.
Give me a break!
It can be both. Even the government predicts the Australian deal adds only 0.015% to our GDP, but it could be devastating for some small sectors of our economy.
I have no problem with British Farming and Fishing being hit by Brexit, after all they voted for it and have agency.
I do care about food standards and animal welfare, as well as labelling. It is these "Non-Tariff Barriers/Consumer Standards" that interest me.
My concern with the deal with Australia is that we didn't negotiate we basically gave them everything they wanted
There was a comment earlier this week that we aren't doing any research as to what we need out of these negotiations as we do them and everything I've seen so far backs up that story.
It looks good but the reality is the deals aren't great for us as we haven't thought through what we really need.
No, but you can give us your expert opinion as to why the option being signed *doesn't* screw farming. Its you vs the trade experts, so I know you will wipe the floor with them.
Tell you what, don't bother. I have stuff to do. Lets just award you the win and move on.
The fanbois cheering an Australia deal are the same ones who cheered this almighty fuckup...
It will give Bozo a good photo op at the G7 and will be lapped up by the cult . The UK is easy pickings for countries wanting a trade deal as they know the government is desperate to polish the Brexit turd !
Good morning everyone. Thanks for the thoughts Ms Cyclefree. We need to be able to trust the BBC and for once I agree with Philip Thompson; the cover-up is more significant than the original offence. However, given what has so far come out about the Daniel Morgan affair, what on earth is Ms Patel doing, apparently seeking to review the report.
On a personal note, off to a real u3a Group meeting this morning; that's two this week! "Fortunately' only small groups; 6 members. It's quite surprising how much Zoom alters peoples faces.
No, on the BBC I don't agree. The coverup is bad. But the original offence was to make up lies about people involved in the story - to invent a conspiracy against someone, carried out by specific named individuals. The journalist stepped into the story and started manipulating the people within it.
On the Daniel Morgan affair and Priti Patel calling in the report, it might be the civil service, of course, but we should remember Keir Starmer had a walk-on part. Only a cynic would suggest CCHQ is preparing a file on Keir Starmer's time as DPP but politics can be a cynical business.
Lovely evening on Wednesday in Edinburgh (not today or yesterday) so took a stroll to the Old Town. Fair few pubs and restaurants still to open and most of the rest looking empty, on a fine evening. Those places would have been heaving two years ago. I guess socialising is a learnt behaviour that we need to relearn.
It must be soul destroying for your business to have survived a year long pandemic, only to come out the other side with empty tables.
The Old Town is surely very much dependant on foreign and domestic tourists, as well as commuters and students. How are things in more residential districts?
I noted that Chiswick was thronged when I visited Fox Jr2 for his birthday, while central London was dead.
Chiswick is thronged because alot of commuters live there. Many haven't gone back to the office yet. So they have got very used to hanging around close to home. Pre lock down, it was interesting how dead Chiswick could be in the evening - most people went out closer to central London.
Yes, that is my point. Is the hospitality trade thriving in commuter areas, and dead in city centres?
On topic, I think BaFin was completely taken in by Wirecard. They bought into this narrative that shortsellers were conspiracy (and paying off) journalists to write lies.
The reality, of course, is that Wirecard was a complete fraud.
(And it is one of those strange ironies that Wirecard was one of those few stocks that Zero Hedge used to pump up, rather than dump down on. Now that's a relationship that should be probed.)
The issue with BaFin is political capture. They seem to believe that part of their role is to protect and promote German national champions which leads to poor decision making on their part.
On topic, I think BaFin was completely taken in by Wirecard. They bought into this narrative that shortsellers were conspiracy (and paying off) journalists to write lies.
The reality, of course, is that Wirecard was a complete fraud.
(And it is one of those strange ironies that Wirecard was one of those few stocks that Zero Hedge used to pump up, rather than dump down on. Now that's a relationship that should be probed.)
To be fair they did probably make the assumption german financial regulators were competent
To those who know the history of Douche Bank - the real question is about the honesty of the German regulators.
I’ve just finished Dark Towers.
OMFG!
Worth a read for anyone with even a marginal interest in the subject
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
Lovely evening on Wednesday in Edinburgh (not today or yesterday) so took a stroll to the Old Town. Fair few pubs and restaurants still to open and most of the rest looking empty, on a fine evening. Those places would have been heaving two years ago. I guess socialising is a learnt behaviour that we need to relearn.
It must be soul destroying for your business to have survived a year long pandemic, only to come out the other side with empty tables.
The Old Town is surely very much dependant on foreign and domestic tourists, as well as commuters and students. How are things in more residential districts?
I noted that Chiswick was thronged when I visited Fox Jr2 for his birthday, while central London was dead.
Subdued in my inner suburb too. I think better in the outer suburbs. Lockdowns have possibly initiated a trend to a very localised entertainment.
It's funny how so many of the people who for years were banging on about the "gravity" of trade and saying that trade with countries outside of Europe, despite being a majority of our trade, was inconsequential - are now terrified of the concept of free trade with countries 11,000 miles away.
Why doesn't "gravity" mean a trade deal will be inconsequential? No instead it signs the death warrant on crofting and farming.
Give me a break!
It's a fair point. Is a deal that offers effectively zero net economic benefit really that big a threat?
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
If a company or party had admitted to such a pivotal role in your mother's death I'm pretty sure you'd want to denounce said company too. I know I would. Don't blame William or Harry if they lay into the BBC about this.
It's funny how so many of the people who for years were banging on about the "gravity" of trade and saying that trade with countries outside of Europe, despite being a majority of our trade, was inconsequential - are now terrified of the concept of free trade with countries 11,000 miles away.
Why doesn't "gravity" mean a trade deal will be inconsequential? No instead it signs the death warrant on crofting and farming.
Give me a break!
It can be both. Even the government predicts the Australian deal adds only 0.015% to our GDP, but it could be devastating for some small sectors of our economy.
I have no problem with British Farming and Fishing being hit by Brexit, after all they voted for it and have agency.
I do care about food standards and animal welfare, as well as labelling. It is these "Non-Tariff Barriers/Consumer Standards" that interest me.
It's a lot of fuss about nothing, although it's predictable that some who have strong views over Brexit will fall down along partisan lines over it.
British farmers and fishers did perfectly well under Commonwealth preference in the 1960s and 1970s, which wasn't phased out until 1980, and we already have options today of getting our fruit and vegetables from all over the world, as well as domestically, which hasn't done any harm.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
If a company or party had admitted to such a pivotal role in your mother's death I'm pretty sure you'd want to denounce said company too. I know I would. Don't blame William or Harry if they lay into the BBC about this.
Given that Princess Di's death is purely down to a drunk driver in Paris I wouldn't call it a pivotal role unless the BBC were doing a free bar in the Ritz that night.
I have been and I still am involved in a number of campaigns involving the public sector and I have to say my experience has been that it is second nature to cover stuff up. It seem endemic. This is even to the point where it really isn't necessary just to avoid an embarrassing exposure.
To take one example (I won't mention the public sector body involved) a successful appeal to the relevant Ombudsman on an individual's part meant that particular public sector body had to write to 3000 individuals to determine who else was impacted and needed payment. In that letter they lied as to the reason for the letter unnecessarily rather than admit to the 3000 that there had been an appeal to the Ombudsman. Obviously those involved in the appeal knew this but the others would not have been. The bizarre thing is they did not have to say anything. All they needed to do was ask for the information and explain there may be compensation and why. They did not even have to mention the Ombudsman but they seemed so paranoid they gave untrue reason for the letter.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
If a company or party had admitted to such a pivotal role in your mother's death I'm pretty sure you'd want to denounce said company too. I know I would. Don't blame William or Harry if they lay into the BBC about this.
Yes, I might but I'm not sure it's wise for a future monarch to do so. I think it should be done subtly, which can make it all the more powerful of course.
On topic, I think BaFin was completely taken in by Wirecard. They bought into this narrative that shortsellers were conspiracy (and paying off) journalists to write lies.
The reality, of course, is that Wirecard was a complete fraud.
(And it is one of those strange ironies that Wirecard was one of those few stocks that Zero Hedge used to pump up, rather than dump down on. Now that's a relationship that should be probed.)
To be fair they did probably make the assumption german financial regulators were competent
To those who know the history of Douche Bank - the real question is about the honesty of the German regulators.
I’ve just finished Dark Towers.
OMFG!
Worth a read for anyone with even a marginal interest in the subject
I've just ordered Dark Towers on your recommendation. Aren't they Donald Trump's banker of choice?
My concern with the deal with Australia is that we didn't negotiate we basically gave them everything they wanted
There was a comment earlier this week that we aren't doing any research as to what we need out of these negotiations as we do them and everything I've seen so far backs up that story.
It looks good but the reality is the deals aren't great for us as we haven't thought through what we really need.
Performative Brexit.
BoZo wanted to sign a deal because Brexit.
Good deal, bad deal, doesn't care.
Brexit deal. All that matters.
I don't understand why he is so insecure about it. Rejoin isn't going to be on the menu until after the next GE at least. Johnson is going at it like a Mustang driver leaving Cars and Coffee.
On topic, I think BaFin was completely taken in by Wirecard. They bought into this narrative that shortsellers were conspiracy (and paying off) journalists to write lies.
The reality, of course, is that Wirecard was a complete fraud.
(And it is one of those strange ironies that Wirecard was one of those few stocks that Zero Hedge used to pump up, rather than dump down on. Now that's a relationship that should be probed.)
To be fair they did probably make the assumption german financial regulators were competent
To those who know the history of Douche Bank - the real question is about the honesty of the German regulators.
I’ve just finished Dark Towers.
OMFG!
Worth a read for anyone with even a marginal interest in the subject
I've just ordered Dark Towers on your recommendation. Aren't they Donald Trump's banker of choice?
Mainly because no one else will touch him... in part because he owes Deutsche so much that few other banks would go near him.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
One of the lies told was that he was spying on his mother. I imagine he feels this very personally. I thought it was a very dignified statement. Note his very firm demand that the interview never be shown again.
Effectively, he's saying "stop tormenting us for your own entertainment" a point I make in my header.
And it seems to me in line with what the RF has been saying lately - that personal family disputes are matters which should be resolved in private. Without wishing to do exactly what I criticise others for, this seemed to me to be a message to more than just the BBC.
I am aghast really at how poor all these internal investigations are. I shouldn't be I suppose. But they are really shockingly bad.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
If a company or party had admitted to such a pivotal role in your mother's death I'm pretty sure you'd want to denounce said company too. I know I would. Don't blame William or Harry if they lay into the BBC about this.
Given that Princess Di's death is purely down to a drunk driver in Paris I wouldn't call it a pivotal role unless the BBC were doing a free bar in the Ritz that night.
The thinking is, as I understand it, that the lies and fake documents were pivotal in making Diana sever arrangements with The Firm and hence ending up with the Phoney Pharaohs version of "security".
My concern with the deal with Australia is that we didn't negotiate we basically gave them everything they wanted
There was a comment earlier this week that we aren't doing any research as to what we need out of these negotiations as we do them and everything I've seen so far backs up that story.
It looks good but the reality is the deals aren't great for us as we haven't thought through what we really need.
Performative Brexit.
BoZo wanted to sign a deal because Brexit.
Good deal, bad deal, doesn't care.
Brexit deal. All that matters.
I don't understand why he is so insecure about it. Rejoin isn't going to be on the menu until after the next GE at least. Johnson is going at it like a Mustang driver leaving Cars and Coffee.
I don't think Johnson is insecure about Brexit. He wants to believe his own Global Britain myth. The UK is throwing off the shackles of a moribund Europe and making its own thrusting way in the world.
Whereas Brexit is lifting the drawbridge and cutting yourself off from the surrounding world, whether you think that's a good thing or not.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
One of the lies told was that he was spying on his mother. I imagine he feels this very personally. I thought it was a very dignified statement. Note his very firm demand that the interview never be shown again.
Effectively, he's saying "stop tormenting us for your own entertainment" a point I make in my header.
And it seems to me in line with what the RF has been saying lately - that personal family disputes are matters which should be resolved in private. Without wishing to do exactly what I criticise others for, this seemed to me to be a message to more than just the BBC.
I am aghast really at how poor all these internal investigations are. I shouldn't be I suppose. But they are really shockingly bad.
You'll have far more experience than I do and my perception is that internal investigations have an innate conflict of interest - it priorities avoiding embarrassment and a quiet life above anything else.
Lovely evening on Wednesday in Edinburgh (not today or yesterday) so took a stroll to the Old Town. Fair few pubs and restaurants still to open and most of the rest looking empty, on a fine evening. Those places would have been heaving two years ago. I guess socialising is a learnt behaviour that we need to relearn.
It must be soul destroying for your business to have survived a year long pandemic, only to come out the other side with empty tables.
The Old Town is surely very much dependant on foreign and domestic tourists, as well as commuters and students. How are things in more residential districts?
I noted that Chiswick was thronged when I visited Fox Jr2 for his birthday, while central London was dead.
Chiswick is thronged because alot of commuters live there. Many haven't gone back to the office yet. So they have got very used to hanging around close to home. Pre lock down, it was interesting how dead Chiswick could be in the evening - most people went out closer to central London.
Yes, that is my point. Is the hospitality trade thriving in commuter areas, and dead in city centres?
I was down at the Borough market earlier in the week - had a table booked at The George. The place wasn't especially full, but for a weekday evening seemed reasonable. The courtyard outside was pretty full despite the weather - I suspect that alot of people are preferring to drink outside as yet.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
If a company or party had admitted to such a pivotal role in your mother's death I'm pretty sure you'd want to denounce said company too. I know I would. Don't blame William or Harry if they lay into the BBC about this.
Given that Princess Di's death is purely down to a drunk driver in Paris I wouldn't call it a pivotal role unless the BBC were doing a free bar in the Ritz that night.
Their fury is totally understandable, but given the state of their parents marriage they and others may be ascribing too much to that interview in terms of causing or leading to later events. Dispassionately, surely a split would have happened, and acrimoniously, regardless? And similar things would have been said and done prior, as that was the cire dispute.
That in no way defends failings of the BBC, just that these things happen because those involved want them - another way to say and do the same things would have been found if the BBC had not been involved.
Its sad, and the BBC acted in the wrong and I dont blame any of the family from taking strong, harsh views as a result. But the interview was still surely a symptom of the issues, not a cause.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
When the Queen was William's age she had been Monarch for 12 years. She had to be more circumspect because from early on what she said mattered.
The test for Charles and William will be if they can adjust to being more careful with their words once they become Sovereign. If they can't then it doesn't matter what the opinion polls say, it will lead to trouble.
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
The terms of the trade deal with Australia will be almost exactly the same as the terms of the EU trade deal we now have.
There will not be zero tariffs with Australia for at least 15 years by which time a different government will likely be in power anyway.
As was correctly pointed out on QT last night the main market Australian farmers are targeting is China and the Asian market not the UK anyway while British farmers will get easier access for their exports to Australia
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
If a company or party had admitted to such a pivotal role in your mother's death I'm pretty sure you'd want to denounce said company too. I know I would. Don't blame William or Harry if they lay into the BBC about this.
Given that Princess Di's death is purely down to a drunk driver in Paris I wouldn't call it a pivotal role unless the BBC were doing a free bar in the Ritz that night.
Diana was offered Royal Protection Officers after her divorce. She refused, in part because she believed they would spy on her. Had she had their protection it is unlikely they would have permitted or advised her to get into a car with an inexperienced drunk driver to speed through Paris. To the extent that this interview contributed to her belief that she was being spied on and best without that protection, then it might have played a part. Not a pivotal role of course. And lots of ifs and buts. But you can see why her sons might feel furious at what happened and at how others used her without regard for her well-being.
On topic, I think BaFin was completely taken in by Wirecard. They bought into this narrative that shortsellers were conspiracy (and paying off) journalists to write lies.
The reality, of course, is that Wirecard was a complete fraud.
(And it is one of those strange ironies that Wirecard was one of those few stocks that Zero Hedge used to pump up, rather than dump down on. Now that's a relationship that should be probed.)
To be fair they did probably make the assumption german financial regulators were competent
To those who know the history of Douche Bank - the real question is about the honesty of the German regulators.
I’ve just finished Dark Towers.
OMFG!
Worth a read for anyone with even a marginal interest in the subject
I've just ordered Dark Towers on your recommendation. Aren't they Donald Trump's banker of choice?
Mainly because no one else will touch him... in part because he owes Deutsche so much that few other banks would go near him.
Plus Deutsche's close connections with Russia ......
Re the discussion on diet, mine is quite woke. I’m a vegetarian like Sir Keir - for dinner tonight I had the kids goldfish!
I have always been rather icky about dairy products and can’t stand milk, cream or cheese. The thought of where it comes from/it being slightly off is horrific. Oat/Almond milk on cereal/smoothies is nice. Dash of real milk in tea, no more
We will surely eat less meat in future, everyone’s at it now. ‘Beyond Meat’ burgers are as tasty as the real thing without the guilt when you see a cow grazing. I feel quite guilty giving my toddler meat dishes, particularly mammals which I don’t really eat. Although I eat chicken, turkey and fish, and sometimes other meat maybe once every month or so, I don’t like it when people go on about how lovely/tender their meat dish was - feel like it should be a kind of dirty secret.
I have been conscientiously switching from mostly red meat to a broader mix including a lot more fish the last few years. Then watched seaspiracy and now have no idea if that is better or worse for the planet.
Seaspiracy (like Cowspiracy that went before it) is 90 minutes of vegan propaganda.
Film is a very powerful medium because it can be framed, reshot, heavily edited and overlaid with emotional music and narrative to tell the story it wants to tell - it might make good entertainment but that doesn't make it accurate.
Don't take my word for it - read the comprehensive debunking online by those misrepresented in it, several biologists and even in the Independent and Guardian.
On topic, I think BaFin was completely taken in by Wirecard. They bought into this narrative that shortsellers were conspiracy (and paying off) journalists to write lies.
The reality, of course, is that Wirecard was a complete fraud.
(And it is one of those strange ironies that Wirecard was one of those few stocks that Zero Hedge used to pump up, rather than dump down on. Now that's a relationship that should be probed.)
To be fair they did probably make the assumption german financial regulators were competent
To those who know the history of Douche Bank - the real question is about the honesty of the German regulators.
I’ve just finished Dark Towers.
OMFG!
Worth a read for anyone with even a marginal interest in the subject
To a degree, the various national "branches" of the investment banks are really separate entities. DB in America is a very American bank.
DB also has a labyrinthine structure, which makes one hand not knowing what the other is doing very easy.
The German issue relates to the way that DB is involved with all German politicians at national level (and alot at lower levels). A scandal there would be an Italian style wipe out of politicians, I reckon.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
If a company or party had admitted to such a pivotal role in your mother's death I'm pretty sure you'd want to denounce said company too. I know I would. Don't blame William or Harry if they lay into the BBC about this.
Given that Princess Di's death is purely down to a drunk driver in Paris I wouldn't call it a pivotal role unless the BBC were doing a free bar in the Ritz that night.
No, but you can give us your expert opinion as to why the option being signed *doesn't* screw farming. Its you vs the trade experts, so I know you will wipe the floor with them.
Tell you what, don't bother. I have stuff to do. Lets just award you the win and move on.
The fanbois cheering an Australia deal are the same ones who cheered this almighty fuckup...
I do wonder why Arlene Foster quit in ignominy and violence erupted in the province when the Northern Ireland politicians were living in such political clover, so ingenious was the acclaimed 'Stormont Optout'.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
If a company or party had admitted to such a pivotal role in your mother's death I'm pretty sure you'd want to denounce said company too. I know I would. Don't blame William or Harry if they lay into the BBC about this.
Given that Princess Di's death is purely down to a drunk driver in Paris I wouldn't call it a pivotal role unless the BBC were doing a free bar in the Ritz that night.
Diana was offered Royal Protection Officers after her divorce. She refused, in part because she believed they would spy on her. Had she had their protection it is unlikely they would have permitted or advised her to get into a car with an inexperienced drunk driver to speed through Paris. To the extent that this interview contributed to her belief that she was being spied on and best without that protection, then it might have played a part. Not a pivotal role of course. And lots of ifs and buts. But you can see why her sons might feel furious at what happened and at how others used her without regard for her well-being.
Diana's sons may well believe this, and it might be true, but it ignores her being in love with Dodi Fayed, which is why she was in Paris in the first place.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
If a company or party had admitted to such a pivotal role in your mother's death I'm pretty sure you'd want to denounce said company too. I know I would. Don't blame William or Harry if they lay into the BBC about this.
Given that Princess Di's death is purely down to a drunk driver in Paris I wouldn't call it a pivotal role unless the BBC were doing a free bar in the Ritz that night.
I agree, tenuous connection with Diana's death. Nevertheless the methods used by Bashir were beyond the pale and the cover-up by the BBC shameful. It seems aggravated in hindsight because of Diana's death that is both tragic and banal.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
If a company or party had admitted to such a pivotal role in your mother's death I'm pretty sure you'd want to denounce said company too. I know I would. Don't blame William or Harry if they lay into the BBC about this.
Given that Princess Di's death is purely down to a drunk driver in Paris I wouldn't call it a pivotal role unless the BBC were doing a free bar in the Ritz that night.
Diana was offered Royal Protection Officers after her divorce. She refused, in part because she believed they would spy on her. Had she had their protection it is unlikely they would have permitted or advised her to get into a car with an inexperienced drunk driver to speed through Paris. To the extent that this interview contributed to her belief that she was being spied on and best without that protection, then it might have played a part. Not a pivotal role of course. And lots of ifs and buts. But you can see why her sons might feel furious at what happened and at how others used her without regard for her well-being.
Diana's sons may well believe this, and it might be true, but it ignores her being in love with Dodi Fayed, which is why she was in Paris in the first place.
I believe that the offer of a protection detail was not conditional on where she went.
If she had had properly organised security, people would have checked on each other for issues. In addition, her driver would have been one of the security team. So she wouldn't have been driven by a semi-functional alcoholic.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
If a company or party had admitted to such a pivotal role in your mother's death I'm pretty sure you'd want to denounce said company too. I know I would. Don't blame William or Harry if they lay into the BBC about this.
Given that Princess Di's death is purely down to a drunk driver in Paris I wouldn't call it a pivotal role unless the BBC were doing a free bar in the Ritz that night.
Diana was offered Royal Protection Officers after her divorce. She refused, in part because she believed they would spy on her. Had she had their protection it is unlikely they would have permitted or advised her to get into a car with an inexperienced drunk driver to speed through Paris. To the extent that this interview contributed to her belief that she was being spied on and best without that protection, then it might have played a part. Not a pivotal role of course. And lots of ifs and buts. But you can see why her sons might feel furious at what happened and at how others used her without regard for her well-being.
Diana's thoughts on being spied on might have been rather coloured by her own spying on her husband, that resulted in his "tampon" stuff being released.
Her previous close protection was someone I knew well. He left the post because his son was terminally ill with leukemia. Her death lies heavily on his conscience. "She would not have died on my watch", he told me.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
One of the lies told was that he was spying on his mother. I imagine he feels this very personally. I thought it was a very dignified statement. Note his very firm demand that the interview never be shown again.
Effectively, he's saying "stop tormenting us for your own entertainment" a point I make in my header.
And it seems to me in line with what the RF has been saying lately - that personal family disputes are matters which should be resolved in private. Without wishing to do exactly what I criticise others for, this seemed to me to be a message to more than just the BBC.
I am aghast really at how poor all these internal investigations are. I shouldn't be I suppose. But they are really shockingly bad.
You'll have far more experience than I do and my perception is that internal investigations have an innate conflict of interest - it priorities avoiding embarrassment and a quiet life above anything else.
Well my investigations certainly didn't do that!
But yes - an internal investigations team has to have independence to do its job and to be trusted, both internally and externally. That requires strong leadership and a very clear understanding by the team about what they are doing and why, a refusal to be bullied, a thick skin. It also requires good governance ie reporting lines need to be sufficiently independent and an ability to manage conflicts of interest properly, including bringing people in from outside where necessary.
Above all, it needs the organisation at a senior level to understand the value of such a team and the work it does.That is what is often missing because until you have had a near death experience from the failure to do these things properly you don't really see the value and do prioritise minimising embarrassment etc as you say.
My time at my bank could have been characterised in two halves: before the financial crisis, I did a great job, built up my credit, everyone loved me for sorting out their messes but very hard to get the budget and resources I really needed and no-one really listened when I told them these were more than 1 or 2 rotten apples.
After: it was all "Oh shit, you were right. Thank God you're here. What do you need? We must listen to you. We're going to show your talks to all our regulators and staff to show how we take this stuff seriously." (The phrase "I fucking told you so!" may even have been expressed, once or twice.)
From Cassandra to some sort of Superwoman.
I see the same issues in other sectors. I have written about this on my work blog. But finance was lucky in really being forced to confront its failings. Most other sectors and organizations aren't and don't want to. Which is why you get the same thing going on over and over again. See the police. Or the NHS, for example.
I don't understand why he is so insecure about it.
He knows how bad it really is.
Doesn't want that to be his legacy.
Except, if that were the case and he was being rational, the thing to do would be a performative BEANO, followed by a rapid change of subject. Then let it quietly unwind over a decade or two under his successors.
By nailing the country to a hard Brexit, he ensures that this will be his legacy. Even though, as Frostie's remarks this week show, things aren't exactly going to plan.
Maybe, like a gambler conscious of having lost a bit, the plan is to double down to make it up. Not a strategy that always works.
As for the deal, no harm in having one, but the angel and the devil will be in the details. Have food and environmental standards been protected, as we were promised? What has the UK got in exchange? Have the UK negotiators leveraged the value of access to the UK market, or have signed what was put in front of us? Does going slower as part of a bigger block get you a more advantageous deal in the end?
Some of these questions might eventually be answered.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
One of the lies told was that he was spying on his mother. I imagine he feels this very personally. I thought it was a very dignified statement. Note his very firm demand that the interview never be shown again.
Effectively, he's saying "stop tormenting us for your own entertainment" a point I make in my header.
And it seems to me in line with what the RF has been saying lately - that personal family disputes are matters which should be resolved in private. Without wishing to do exactly what I criticise others for, this seemed to me to be a message to more than just the BBC.
I am aghast really at how poor all these internal investigations are. I shouldn't be I suppose. But they are really shockingly bad.
You'll have far more experience than I do and my perception is that internal investigations have an innate conflict of interest - it priorities avoiding embarrassment and a quiet life above anything else.
Well my investigations certainly didn't do that!
But yes - an internal investigations team has to have independence to do its job and to be trusted, both internally and externally. That requires strong leadership and a very clear understanding by the team about what they are doing and why, a refusal to be bullied, a thick skin. It also requires good governance ie reporting lines need to be sufficiently independent and an ability to manage conflicts of interest properly, including bringing people in from outside where necessary.
Above all, it needs the organisation at a senior level to understand the value of such a team and the work it does.That is what is often missing because until you have had a near death experience from the failure to do these things properly you don't really see the value and do prioritise minimising embarrassment etc as you say.
My time at my bank could have been characterised in two halves: before the financial crisis, I did a great job, built up my credit, everyone loved me for sorting out their messes but very hard to get the budget and resources I really needed and no-one really listened when I told them these were more than 1 or 2 rotten apples.
After: it was all "Oh shit, you were right. Thank God you're here. What do you need? We must listen to you.we're going to show your talks to all our regulators and staff to show how we take this stuff seriously."
From Cassandra to some sort of Superwoman.
I see the same issues in other sectors. I have written about this on my work blog. But finance was lucky in really being forced to confront its failings. Most other sectors and organizations aren't and don't want to. Which is why you get the same thing going on over and over again. See the police. Or the NHS, for example.
I read about an industrial psychologist who was hired into NASA to help deal with cultural issues after the Challenger accident.
She was forced out. Apparently she upset people by talking too much about the accident and suggesting that different actions could have led to a different result.
In the review of the Columbia accident, a number of outsiders noted that NASA was very good at thinking that "nothing can be done".
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
Can you give me one good reason why trade with Aus/NZ screws Scottish farming, while trade with 27 nations across Europe is the greatest thing since sliced bread?
No, but you can give us your expert opinion as to why the option being signed *doesn't* screw farming. Its you vs the trade experts, so I know you will wipe the floor with them.
Tell you what, don't bother. I have stuff to do. Lets just award you the win and move on.
"Trade experts" are not a homogenous bloc, ask any contentious economics question and you can get an "expert" taking one side and another "expert" taking another side.
So no, "the trade experts" do not say this. Some do, others agree with me.
Many of those so-called "experts" are the same who said that Brexit would lead to the border grinding to a halt in January, a falsehood you swallowed hook, line and sinker.
Many so-called "experts" said that New Zealand dropping its tariffs and subsidies would destroy Kiwi agriculture, instead it became even better.
If businesses face more competition then they will need to step up their game to meet the competition head on and thrive (a good thing), or fail and be replaced better operators who will do so (macroeconomically a good thing), or fail and we use the land for something more productive instead (macroeconomically a good thing).
Agriculture is 0.61% of GDP and uses up 70% of our land. Quite frankly its inconsequential.
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
The terms of the trade deal with Australia will be almost exactly the same as the terms of the EU trade deal we now have.
There will not be zero tariffs with Australia for at least 15 years by which time a different government will likely be in power anyway.
As was correctly pointed out on QT last night the main market Australian farmers are targeting is China and the Asian market not the UK anyway while British farmers will get easier access for their exports to Australia
The real problem is that it sells the pass for the much more important US trade deal: it will now be impossible to conclude that without similar terms. The US agribusinesses certainly will destroy much of British farming if they have free access to undercut them.
It's a small sector of the economy and it will make food marginally cheaper. Whether that's worth losing much of our farming tradition is a question that we can debate, but it's a real one. I'm by no means a traditionalist, and I have an ulterior motive - I disapprove of the very low welfare staandards in much of Australian and US agriculture. But I'd have thought Conservative MPs would be dubious anyway.
I have been and I still am involved in a number of campaigns involving the public sector and I have to say my experience has been that it is second nature to cover stuff up. It seem endemic. This is even to the point where it really isn't necessary just to avoid an embarrassing exposure.
To take one example (I won't mention the public sector body involved) a successful appeal to the relevant Ombudsman on an individual's part meant that particular public sector body had to write to 3000 individuals to determine who else was impacted and needed payment. In that letter they lied as to the reason for the letter unnecessarily rather than admit to the 3000 that there had been an appeal to the Ombudsman. Obviously those involved in the appeal knew this but the others would not have been. The bizarre thing is they did not have to say anything. All they needed to do was ask for the information and explain there may be compensation and why. They did not even have to mention the Ombudsman but they seemed so paranoid they gave untrue reason for the letter.
I'd say that the NHS is particularly egregious in the respect of coverups / hoping complainants will tire out and go away.
The energy used per kg of meat to transport the food across the world is tiny compared to the energy you will use getting it from the supermarket to your house.
If that's the best argument you can come up with it's easily debunked.
A better question would be does the food meet the high UK standards given that a lot of current Australian exports are to countries with far lower standards.
For fuck's sake. We've been through this. Carbon emissions involved in shipping food from the Antipodes are negligible. The carbon emissions involved in the road sections of the journey are almost certainly higher.
The energy used per kg of meat to transport the food across the world is tiny compared to the energy you will use getting it from the supermarket to your house.
If that's the best argument you can come up with it's easily debunked.
A better question would be does the food meet the high UK standards given that a lot of current Australian exports are to countries with far lower standards.
Isn't the point that we should be eating a lot less red meat period and that importing cheaper red meat from Australia is therefore a step in the wrong direction?
As someone who rather likes red meat, lamb especially, this is not an observation that I find instinctively attractive but the evidence that red meat production is bad for global warming seems pretty compelling.
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
The terms of the trade deal with Australia will be almost exactly the same as the terms of the EU trade deal we now have.
There will not be zero tariffs with Australia for at least 15 years by which time a different government will likely be in power anyway.
As was correctly pointed out on QT last night the main market Australian farmers are targeting is China and the Asian market not the UK anyway while British farmers will get easier access for their exports to Australia
The real problem is that it sells the pass for the much more important US trade deal: it will now be impossible to conclude that without similar terms. The US agribusinesses certainly will destroy much of British farming if they have free access to undercut them.
It's a small sector of the economy and it will make food marginally cheaper. Whether that's worth losing much of our farming tradition is a question that we can debate, but it's a real one. I'm by no means a traditionalist, and I have an ulterior motive - I disapprove of the very low welfare staandards in much of Australian and US agriculture. But I'd have thought Conservative MPs would be dubious anyway.
You're the expert here Nick - but are Australian farm animals really kept in worse conditions than European ones? It seems unlikely.
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
The terms of the trade deal with Australia will be almost exactly the same as the terms of the EU trade deal we now have.
There will not be zero tariffs with Australia for at least 15 years by which time a different government will likely be in power anyway.
As was correctly pointed out on QT last night the main market Australian farmers are targeting is China and the Asian market not the UK anyway while British farmers will get easier access for their exports to Australia
The real problem is that it sells the pass for the much more important US trade deal: it will now be impossible to conclude that without similar terms. The US agribusinesses certainly will destroy much of British farming if they have free access to undercut them.
It's a small sector of the economy and it will make food marginally cheaper. Whether that's worth losing much of our farming tradition is a question that we can debate, but it's a real one. I'm by no means a traditionalist, and I have an ulterior motive - I disapprove of the very low welfare staandards in much of Australian and US agriculture. But I'd have thought Conservative MPs would be dubious anyway.
That might have been the case with Trump but under President Biden and with a Democratic Congress showing little interest in a UK trade deal anytime soon and certainly not unless the NI Protocol Boris wants to remove is kept in full it is not on the cards for the foreseeable future.
Indeed, the trade deal with Australia is probably going to be the biggest trade deal this government will ever get until the next election that the EU had not already negotiated anyway
For fuck's sake. We've been through this. Carbon emissions involved in shipping food from the Antipodes are negligible. The carbon emissions involved in the road sections of the journey are almost certainly higher.
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
The terms of the trade deal with Australia will be almost exactly the same as the terms of the EU trade deal we now have.
There will not be zero tariffs with Australia for at least 15 years by which time a different government will likely be in power anyway.
As was correctly pointed out on QT last night the main market Australian farmers are targeting is China and the Asian market not the UK anyway while British farmers will get easier access for their exports to Australia
The real problem is that it sells the pass for the much more important US trade deal: it will now be impossible to conclude that without similar terms. The US agribusinesses certainly will destroy much of British farming if they have free access to undercut them.
It's a small sector of the economy and it will make food marginally cheaper. Whether that's worth losing much of our farming tradition is a question that we can debate, but it's a real one. I'm by no means a traditionalist, and I have an ulterior motive - I disapprove of the very low welfare staandards in much of Australian and US agriculture. But I'd have thought Conservative MPs would be dubious anyway.
If people want to buy Red Tractor meat let them do so. If supermarkets want Union Flags on their meat let them do so. If companies like McDonald's want to advertise that they use "100% British and Irish" meat let them do so.
If consumers want to buy Aussie beef let them do so. Its very good quality stuff in general and good value for money.
Free choice.
I think a zero tariff/zero quota deal with the USA would be fantastic news - but I can't see the Americans agreeing to it unlike the Aussies.
You're the expert here Nick - but are Australian farm animals really kept in worse conditions than European ones? It seems unlikely.
They are injected with synthetic growth hormones that are illegal in Europe
Funny how you're now such a fan of Non Tariff Barriers.
Its entirely safe and there's no scientific or health reason not to do it.
"According to research by the European Federation of Animal Health, a single consumer would need to eat more than 77 kilograms of beef from an HGP-treated beast in one sitting to get the same level of oestrogen hormone found in one egg."
You're the expert here Nick - but are Australian farm animals really kept in worse conditions than European ones? It seems unlikely.
They are injected with synthetic growth hormones that are illegal in Europe
New Zealand also bans growth hormones in farming, in many respects Australia is closer to the US than New Zealand and Europe, certainly in the most rural bits like Queensland where the farming sector is biggest
For fuck's sake. We've been through this. Carbon emissions involved in shipping food from the Antipodes are negligible. The carbon emissions involved in the road sections of the journey are almost certainly higher.
But the carbon emissions involved in raising cattle on grains, pulses and other cash crops (in some cases imported from tropical countries where forest has been cleared to make way for them), rather than on grass in a wet maritime climate, are substantial.
Not even Brexiteers in cabinet were willing to defend the hormones
Theresa Villiers, the environment secretary, has stated categorically that Britain will maintain the EU’s ban on meat from cattle treated with growth hormones.
Not even Brexiteers in cabinet were willing to defend the hormones
Theresa Villiers, the environment secretary, has stated categorically that Britain will maintain the EU’s ban on meat from cattle treated with growth hormones.
I think it's better to err on the side of caution when it comes to this kind of thing.
This is the producers’ side of the argument for why that’s ok. I can see why this might be troubling to a vegetarian but not to a meat eater. What’s the argument against beyond “you kill them sooner” which is the flip side of the efficiency gains posted here?
I can seem some discussion about one hormone being linked to cancer, and I’d want to see the numbers on that. But currently, I can’t find a killer argument against.
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
The terms of the trade deal with Australia will be almost exactly the same as the terms of the EU trade deal we now have.
There will not be zero tariffs with Australia for at least 15 years by which time a different government will likely be in power anyway.
As was correctly pointed out on QT last night the main market Australian farmers are targeting is China and the Asian market not the UK anyway while British farmers will get easier access for their exports to Australia
The real problem is that it sells the pass for the much more important US trade deal: it will now be impossible to conclude that without similar terms. The US agribusinesses certainly will destroy much of British farming if they have free access to undercut them.
It's a small sector of the economy and it will make food marginally cheaper. Whether that's worth losing much of our farming tradition is a question that we can debate, but it's a real one. I'm by no means a traditionalist, and I have an ulterior motive - I disapprove of the very low welfare staandards in much of Australian and US agriculture. But I'd have thought Conservative MPs would be dubious anyway.
If people want to buy Red Tractor meat let them do so. If supermarkets want Union Flags on their meat let them do so. If companies like McDonald's want to advertise that they use "100% British and Irish" meat let them do so.
If consumers want to buy Aussie beef let them do so. Its very good quality stuff in general and good value for money.
Free choice.
I think a zero tariff/zero quota deal with the USA would be fantastic news - but I can't see the Americans agreeing to it unlike the Aussies.
I'm reminded of this strange Tory think-tank woman who appeared on Question Time during the BSE crisis. Her solution: put labels on the supermarket packaging saying if the meat came from a BSE-infected herd.
Not even Brexiteers in cabinet were willing to defend the hormones
Theresa Villiers, the environment secretary, has stated categorically that Britain will maintain the EU’s ban on meat from cattle treated with growth hormones.
Its a non-tariff barrier with no scientific evidence behind it and the WTO rightly ruled against it.
Funny how all those who claim that Britain can't do certain things as its "against WTO rules" ignore the fact that the EU is flouting WTO rules here with this ridiculous non-tariff barrier.
The sooner its dropped the better. If its dropped as part of this trade agreement even better, a side-bonus from Brexit. 👍
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
The terms of the trade deal with Australia will be almost exactly the same as the terms of the EU trade deal we now have.
There will not be zero tariffs with Australia for at least 15 years by which time a different government will likely be in power anyway.
As was correctly pointed out on QT last night the main market Australian farmers are targeting is China and the Asian market not the UK anyway while British farmers will get easier access for their exports to Australia
The real problem is that it sells the pass for the much more important US trade deal: it will now be impossible to conclude that without similar terms. The US agribusinesses certainly will destroy much of British farming if they have free access to undercut them.
It's a small sector of the economy and it will make food marginally cheaper. Whether that's worth losing much of our farming tradition is a question that we can debate, but it's a real one. I'm by no means a traditionalist, and I have an ulterior motive - I disapprove of the very low welfare staandards in much of Australian and US agriculture. But I'd have thought Conservative MPs would be dubious anyway.
If people want to buy Red Tractor meat let them do so. If supermarkets want Union Flags on their meat let them do so. If companies like McDonald's want to advertise that they use "100% British and Irish" meat let them do so.
If consumers want to buy Aussie beef let them do so. Its very good quality stuff in general and good value for money.
Free choice.
I think a zero tariff/zero quota deal with the USA would be fantastic news - but I can't see the Americans agreeing to it unlike the Aussies.
I'm reminded of this strange Tory think-tank woman who appeared on Question Time during the BSE crisis. Her solution: put labels on the supermarket packing saying if the meat came from a BSE-infected herd.
BSE makes people sick.
Buying food from the land downunder does not.
The only thing people have legitimate concerns over is protectionism. Sticking a flag on stuff deals with that, if you're worried about whether your food is British or not buy something with a Union Jack and move on. For Scottish readers: Other flags are available.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
One of the lies told was that he was spying on his mother. I imagine he feels this very personally. I thought it was a very dignified statement. Note his very firm demand that the interview never be shown again.
Effectively, he's saying "stop tormenting us for your own entertainment" a point I make in my header.
And it seems to me in line with what the RF has been saying lately - that personal family disputes are matters which should be resolved in private. Without wishing to do exactly what I criticise others for, this seemed to me to be a message to more than just the BBC.
I am aghast really at how poor all these internal investigations are. I shouldn't be I suppose. But they are really shockingly bad.
You'll have far more experience than I do and my perception is that internal investigations have an innate conflict of interest - it priorities avoiding embarrassment and a quiet life above anything else.
Well my investigations certainly didn't do that!
But yes - an internal investigations team has to have independence to do its job and to be trusted, both internally and externally. That requires strong leadership and a very clear understanding by the team about what they are doing and why, a refusal to be bullied, a thick skin. It also requires good governance ie reporting lines need to be sufficiently independent and an ability to manage conflicts of interest properly, including bringing people in from outside where necessary.
Above all, it needs the organisation at a senior level to understand the value of such a team and the work it does.That is what is often missing because until you have had a near death experience from the failure to do these things properly you don't really see the value and do prioritise minimising embarrassment etc as you say.
My time at my bank could have been characterised in two halves: before the financial crisis, I did a great job, built up my credit, everyone loved me for sorting out their messes but very hard to get the budget and resources I really needed and no-one really listened when I told them these were more than 1 or 2 rotten apples.
After: it was all "Oh shit, you were right. Thank God you're here. What do you need? We must listen to you. We're going to show your talks to all our regulators and staff to show how we take this stuff seriously." (The phrase "I fucking told you so!" may even have been expressed, once or twice.)
From Cassandra to some sort of Superwoman.
I see the same issues in other sectors. I have written about this on my work blog. But finance was lucky in really being forced to confront its failings. Most other sectors and organizations aren't and don't want to. Which is why you get the same thing going on over and over again. See the police. Or the NHS, for example.
Very well put. Agree completely. We need more of you!
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
The terms of the trade deal with Australia will be almost exactly the same as the terms of the EU trade deal we now have.
There will not be zero tariffs with Australia for at least 15 years by which time a different government will likely be in power anyway.
As was correctly pointed out on QT last night the main market Australian farmers are targeting is China and the Asian market not the UK anyway while British farmers will get easier access for their exports to Australia
The real problem is that it sells the pass for the much more important US trade deal: it will now be impossible to conclude that without similar terms. The US agribusinesses certainly will destroy much of British farming if they have free access to undercut them.
It's a small sector of the economy and it will make food marginally cheaper. Whether that's worth losing much of our farming tradition is a question that we can debate, but it's a real one. I'm by no means a traditionalist, and I have an ulterior motive - I disapprove of the very low welfare staandards in much of Australian and US agriculture. But I'd have thought Conservative MPs would be dubious anyway.
You're the expert here Nick - but are Australian farm animals really kept in worse conditions than European ones? It seems unlikely.
At my local Kvikly supermarket they sell Australian beef all the time - presumably Denmark wouldn't import it if it didn't meet EU requirements so not really sure what anyone is talking about - British beef is fab but I very rarely see it here - Irish beef is ghastly stuff, at least the stuff that comes here.
This is the producers’ side of the argument for why that’s ok. I can see why this might be troubling to a vegetarian but not to a meat eater. What’s the argument against beyond “you kill them sooner” which is the flip side of the efficiency gains posted here?
I can seem some discussion about one hormone being linked to cancer, and I’d want to see the numbers on that. But currently, I can’t find a killer argument against.
You'd need to eat 77kg of beef to get the same hormone as you get from one egg.
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
The terms of the trade deal with Australia will be almost exactly the same as the terms of the EU trade deal we now have.
There will not be zero tariffs with Australia for at least 15 years by which time a different government will likely be in power anyway.
As was correctly pointed out on QT last night the main market Australian farmers are targeting is China and the Asian market not the UK anyway while British farmers will get easier access for their exports to Australia
The real problem is that it sells the pass for the much more important US trade deal: it will now be impossible to conclude that without similar terms. The US agribusinesses certainly will destroy much of British farming if they have free access to undercut them.
It's a small sector of the economy and it will make food marginally cheaper. Whether that's worth losing much of our farming tradition is a question that we can debate, but it's a real one. I'm by no means a traditionalist, and I have an ulterior motive - I disapprove of the very low welfare standards in much of Australian and US agriculture. But I'd have thought Conservative MPs would be dubious anyway.
I don't think it is clear how much we could actually lose. It's not as if beef exports to the EU will be lost, for example.
Agree that we need to see what is in about welfare standards. AIUI the EU requirement to restrict beef with hormone treatments has been declared legal at WTO level.
Having said that I dropped a note to my MP asking that there be backstops. Again, the EU beef deal with Australia contains some sensible measures, and we don't need to commit to a complete absence of volume / tariff regulation to get this going.' Yes, the precendent is concerning for other negotiations.
Nor do we particularly have to listen to premillenial blustering about things that haven't happened yet, where there is no indication that it will happen in the way declared.
The Blackford stuff is as crazy as it usually is. It reminds me of Sturgeon's declarations that £4m of seed potato exports lost would be a "disaster" for a £3bn industry, rather than a minor pivot. He would declare Scotland to be a Brexit desert if one 6x4 greenhouse blew down in Gretna.
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
The terms of the trade deal with Australia will be almost exactly the same as the terms of the EU trade deal we now have.
There will not be zero tariffs with Australia for at least 15 years by which time a different government will likely be in power anyway.
As was correctly pointed out on QT last night the main market Australian farmers are targeting is China and the Asian market not the UK anyway while British farmers will get easier access for their exports to Australia
The real problem is that it sells the pass for the much more important US trade deal: it will now be impossible to conclude that without similar terms. The US agribusinesses certainly will destroy much of British farming if they have free access to undercut them.
It's a small sector of the economy and it will make food marginally cheaper. Whether that's worth losing much of our farming tradition is a question that we can debate, but it's a real one. I'm by no means a traditionalist, and I have an ulterior motive - I disapprove of the very low welfare staandards in much of Australian and US agriculture. But I'd have thought Conservative MPs would be dubious anyway.
You're the expert here Nick - but are Australian farm animals really kept in worse conditions than European ones? It seems unlikely.
There are a number of nasty things that Australian farmers do that are banned in the EU, including mulesing of sheep (the removal of skin and flesh around the animal's anus without anaesthetic):
Also, chlorinated chicken (meaning poor welfare standards for chickens), battery farming, sow stalls, hormone-treated beef, live exports and animals transported for 48 hours without rest.
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
The terms of the trade deal with Australia will be almost exactly the same as the terms of the EU trade deal we now have.
There will not be zero tariffs with Australia for at least 15 years by which time a different government will likely be in power anyway.
As was correctly pointed out on QT last night the main market Australian farmers are targeting is China and the Asian market not the UK anyway while British farmers will get easier access for their exports to Australia
The real problem is that it sells the pass for the much more important US trade deal: it will now be impossible to conclude that without similar terms. The US agribusinesses certainly will destroy much of British farming if they have free access to undercut them.
It's a small sector of the economy and it will make food marginally cheaper. Whether that's worth losing much of our farming tradition is a question that we can debate, but it's a real one. I'm by no means a traditionalist, and I have an ulterior motive - I disapprove of the very low welfare staandards in much of Australian and US agriculture. But I'd have thought Conservative MPs would be dubious anyway.
If people want to buy Red Tractor meat let them do so. If supermarkets want Union Flags on their meat let them do so. If companies like McDonald's want to advertise that they use "100% British and Irish" meat let them do so.
If consumers want to buy Aussie beef let them do so. Its very good quality stuff in general and good value for money.
Free choice.
I think a zero tariff/zero quota deal with the USA would be fantastic news - but I can't see the Americans agreeing to it unlike the Aussies.
And as you've been told multiple times the US does not want labels on their meat because they do not want consumers to have that choice.
The energy used per kg of meat to transport the food across the world is tiny compared to the energy you will use getting it from the supermarket to your house.
If that's the best argument you can come up with it's easily debunked.
A better question would be does the food meet the high UK standards given that a lot of current Australian exports are to countries with far lower standards.
Isn't the point that we should be eating a lot less red meat period and that importing cheaper red meat from Australia is therefore a step in the wrong direction?
As someone who rather likes red meat, lamb especially, this is not an observation that I find instinctively attractive but the evidence that red meat production is bad for global warming seems pretty compelling.
Lamb is better than beef for the environment. Much less methane, much less supplementary feed, less water and well suited to uplands where little else thrives.
Veal too. Most male calves are shot at birth in the UK, and the carcases wasted as a by product of the dairy industry. Outdoor natural British veal is excellent, just hard to find.
Once again, the biggest losers from tariff free imports of beef from Australia will be other imports that have to compete with a new unrestricted competitor. The UK is a net importer of prime cuts of red meat and a net exporter of "everything else". We don't come close to satisfying the demand for prime cuts of red meat from our domestic agriculture which is why we import so much of it from the EU, Ireland especially. This is an existential threat for EU imports of prime cuts of beef and if/when the NZ deal is done the same will be true for lamb. That's why people who have been saying "free trade good" wrt the EU are now saying "free trade bad" when it comes to an import partner that will outcompete the EU to a significant degree.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
One of the lies told was that he was spying on his mother. I imagine he feels this very personally. I thought it was a very dignified statement. Note his very firm demand that the interview never be shown again.
Effectively, he's saying "stop tormenting us for your own entertainment" a point I make in my header.
And it seems to me in line with what the RF has been saying lately - that personal family disputes are matters which should be resolved in private. Without wishing to do exactly what I criticise others for, this seemed to me to be a message to more than just the BBC.
I am aghast really at how poor all these internal investigations are. I shouldn't be I suppose. But they are really shockingly bad.
You'll have far more experience than I do and my perception is that internal investigations have an innate conflict of interest - it priorities avoiding embarrassment and a quiet life above anything else.
In my (searingly personal) experience internal investigations sometimes have a predetermined outcome in the form of who is to be scapegoated for something that went wrong in a large organization. Said person being senior enough for it to not look risible but not of a level that would raise "issues" for the blowers of noses into silk handkerchiefs (aka the board).
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
The terms of the trade deal with Australia will be almost exactly the same as the terms of the EU trade deal we now have.
There will not be zero tariffs with Australia for at least 15 years by which time a different government will likely be in power anyway.
As was correctly pointed out on QT last night the main market Australian farmers are targeting is China and the Asian market not the UK anyway while British farmers will get easier access for their exports to Australia
The real problem is that it sells the pass for the much more important US trade deal: it will now be impossible to conclude that without similar terms. The US agribusinesses certainly will destroy much of British farming if they have free access to undercut them.
It's a small sector of the economy and it will make food marginally cheaper. Whether that's worth losing much of our farming tradition is a question that we can debate, but it's a real one. I'm by no means a traditionalist, and I have an ulterior motive - I disapprove of the very low welfare staandards in much of Australian and US agriculture. But I'd have thought Conservative MPs would be dubious anyway.
If people want to buy Red Tractor meat let them do so. If supermarkets want Union Flags on their meat let them do so. If companies like McDonald's want to advertise that they use "100% British and Irish" meat let them do so.
If consumers want to buy Aussie beef let them do so. Its very good quality stuff in general and good value for money.
Free choice.
I think a zero tariff/zero quota deal with the USA would be fantastic news - but I can't see the Americans agreeing to it unlike the Aussies.
And as you've been told multiple times the US does not want labels on their meat because they do not want consumers to have that choice.
That's the main reason it won't happen, they don't respect GIs, they don't want labelling of US imports and they wouldn't agree to "export grade" only in a trade deal. A US trade deal is completely off the table, it always has been.
The energy used per kg of meat to transport the food across the world is tiny compared to the energy you will use getting it from the supermarket to your house.
If that's the best argument you can come up with it's easily debunked.
A better question would be does the food meet the high UK standards given that a lot of current Australian exports are to countries with far lower standards.
Isn't the point that we should be eating a lot less red meat period and that importing cheaper red meat from Australia is therefore a step in the wrong direction?
As someone who rather likes red meat, lamb especially, this is not an observation that I find instinctively attractive but the evidence that red meat production is bad for global warming seems pretty compelling.
I think I've posted before the extreme variability in emissions for different beef production systems, which highlights that there is massive availability for C02 saving without much reduction.
It's like water used in cotton production. The talking heads always pick one of the poorer numbers and declare Apocalypse.
You're the expert here Nick - but are Australian farm animals really kept in worse conditions than European ones? It seems unlikely.
They are injected with synthetic growth hormones that are illegal in Europe
Funny how you're now such a fan of Non Tariff Barriers.
Its entirely safe and there's no scientific or health reason not to do it.
"According to research by the European Federation of Animal Health, a single consumer would need to eat more than 77 kilograms of beef from an HGP-treated beast in one sitting to get the same level of oestrogen hormone found in one egg."
It's perhaps worth noting that, as far as I can ascertain, EFAH has been subsumed into IFAH which is described as "The International Federation for Animal Health (IFAH) is the global representative body of companies engaged in research, development, manufacturing and commercialisation of veterinary medicines, vaccines and other animal health products in both developed and developing countries across the five continents."[1]
It would not be a stretch to describe the research as "industry funded" and there are some interesting studies on the differences between industry and non-industry funded research on, e.g. a whole load of human pharmaceuticals.
But anyway, isn't the concern (like with "chlorine chicken") more about what this might mean for animal welfare, not for human health?
The energy used per kg of meat to transport the food across the world is tiny compared to the energy you will use getting it from the supermarket to your house.
If that's the best argument you can come up with it's easily debunked.
A better question would be does the food meet the high UK standards given that a lot of current Australian exports are to countries with far lower standards.
Isn't the point that we should be eating a lot less red meat period and that importing cheaper red meat from Australia is therefore a step in the wrong direction?
As someone who rather likes red meat, lamb especially, this is not an observation that I find instinctively attractive but the evidence that red meat production is bad for global warming seems pretty compelling.
Lamb is better than beef for the environment. Much less methane, much less supplementary feed, less water and well suited to uplands where little else thrives.
Veal too. Most male calves are shot at birth in the UK, and the carcases wasted as a by product of the dairy industry. Outdoor natural British veal is excellent, just hard to find.
I agree with much of that. Indeed, Patrick Holden, Director of the Sustainable Food Trust, says:
"In order to support the transition to regenerative farming systems, which rebuild the fertility that has been lost during the intensive farming chapter, we actually need to eat more grass-fed meat, mainly beef and lamb.
“In the UK, two-thirds of the farmed area is currently pasture (grass and clover). These grasslands play a vital role in maintaining the soil carbon bank, as well as producing food we can eat, through the unique ability of ruminants to digest cellulose. Not only does this maintain a healthy soil, but the land works as a carbon sink – absorbing carbon dioxide. So, if you’re eating grass-fed beef, lamb and dairy, you can do so with a clear conscience, knowing you are part of the solution, not the problem.
“University of Oxford Professor Myles Allen has recalculated the amount of methane emissions from ruminants: https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-news-climate-pollutants-gwp/ As a result, he’s calling into question all the conclusions of the recent reports on climate change and agriculture. The inference from this new research is that we don’t have to stop eating grass-fed cattle or sheep.
“Instead of demonising livestock in general and cattle and sheep in particular, we need to differentiate between the animals that are part of the problem, namely intensively produced poultry, pork and diary products, and those that are part of the solution, namely grass-fed ruminants. At the root of the climate change problem is our fossil fuel consumption, this is where we need to take the most urgent action”.
Once again, the biggest losers from tariff free imports of beef from Australia will be other imports that have to compete with a new unrestricted competitor. The UK is a net importer of prime cuts of red meat and a net exporter of "everything else". We don't come close to satisfying the demand for prime cuts of red meat from our domestic agriculture which is why we import so much of it from the EU, Ireland especially. This is an existential threat for EU imports of prime cuts of beef and if/when the NZ deal is done the same will be true for lamb. That's why people who have been saying "free trade good" wrt the EU are now saying "free trade bad" when it comes to an import partner that will outcompete the EU to a significant degree.
Isn't a huge proportion of beef in Europe, cheap meat imported from Brazil, where they are burning down half the Amazon rainforest in order to gain the land required?
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
The terms of the trade deal with Australia will be almost exactly the same as the terms of the EU trade deal we now have.
There will not be zero tariffs with Australia for at least 15 years by which time a different government will likely be in power anyway.
As was correctly pointed out on QT last night the main market Australian farmers are targeting is China and the Asian market not the UK anyway while British farmers will get easier access for their exports to Australia
The real problem is that it sells the pass for the much more important US trade deal: it will now be impossible to conclude that without similar terms. The US agribusinesses certainly will destroy much of British farming if they have free access to undercut them.
It's a small sector of the economy and it will make food marginally cheaper. Whether that's worth losing much of our farming tradition is a question that we can debate, but it's a real one. I'm by no means a traditionalist, and I have an ulterior motive - I disapprove of the very low welfare staandards in much of Australian and US agriculture. But I'd have thought Conservative MPs would be dubious anyway.
You're the expert here Nick - but are Australian farm animals really kept in worse conditions than European ones? It seems unlikely.
At my local Kvikly supermarket they sell Australian beef all the time - presumably Denmark wouldn't import it if it didn't meet EU requirements so not really sure what anyone is talking about - British beef is fab but I very rarely see it here - Irish beef is ghastly stuff, at least the stuff that comes here.
Supermarkets are a bit too real world for some PBers.
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
The terms of the trade deal with Australia will be almost exactly the same as the terms of the EU trade deal we now have.
There will not be zero tariffs with Australia for at least 15 years by which time a different government will likely be in power anyway.
As was correctly pointed out on QT last night the main market Australian farmers are targeting is China and the Asian market not the UK anyway while British farmers will get easier access for their exports to Australia
The real problem is that it sells the pass for the much more important US trade deal: it will now be impossible to conclude that without similar terms. The US agribusinesses certainly will destroy much of British farming if they have free access to undercut them.
It's a small sector of the economy and it will make food marginally cheaper. Whether that's worth losing much of our farming tradition is a question that we can debate, but it's a real one. I'm by no means a traditionalist, and I have an ulterior motive - I disapprove of the very low welfare staandards in much of Australian and US agriculture. But I'd have thought Conservative MPs would be dubious anyway.
If people want to buy Red Tractor meat let them do so. If supermarkets want Union Flags on their meat let them do so. If companies like McDonald's want to advertise that they use "100% British and Irish" meat let them do so.
If consumers want to buy Aussie beef let them do so. Its very good quality stuff in general and good value for money.
Free choice.
I think a zero tariff/zero quota deal with the USA would be fantastic news - but I can't see the Americans agreeing to it unlike the Aussies.
And as you've been told multiple times the US does not want labels on their meat because they do not want consumers to have that choice.
And as I've said multiple times that is not true. America loves labelling.
Comments
There was a comment earlier this week that we aren't doing any research as to what we need out of these negotiations as we do them and everything I've seen so far backs up that story.
It looks good but the reality is the deals aren't great for us as we haven't thought through what we really need.
EU27 were an excellent market for Scottish produce that Aus/NZ will never be.
Aus/NZ goods can potentially be imported into the UK tariff free that would be illegal if produced here.
He e mailed the CEO directly - stating the various open complaints and his medical issues and how the actions and inactions of E.on were impacting him and how he intended to take matter to press and MP if they did not resolve
Within hours he has had a written response promising someone will contact him within 48 hours and stating that all action against him paused pending resolution.
Lets hope that finally this is heading towards a resolution.
I have no problem with British Farming and Fishing being hit by Brexit, after all they voted for it and have agency.
I do care about food standards and animal welfare, as well as labelling. It is these "Non-Tariff Barriers/Consumer Standards" that interest me.
BoZo wanted to sign a deal because Brexit.
Good deal, bad deal, doesn't care.
Brexit deal. All that matters.
OMFG!
Worth a read for anyone with even a marginal interest in the subject
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
British farmers and fishers did perfectly well under Commonwealth preference in the 1960s and 1970s, which wasn't phased out until 1980, and we already have options today of getting our fruit and vegetables from all over the world, as well as domestically, which hasn't done any harm.
Absolutely delicious.
To take one example (I won't mention the public sector body involved) a successful appeal to the relevant Ombudsman on an individual's part meant that particular public sector body had to write to 3000 individuals to determine who else was impacted and needed payment. In that letter they lied as to the reason for the letter unnecessarily rather than admit to the 3000 that there had been an appeal to the Ombudsman. Obviously those involved in the appeal knew this but the others would not have been. The bizarre thing is they did not have to say anything. All they needed to do was ask for the information and explain there may be compensation and why. They did not even have to mention the Ombudsman but they seemed so paranoid they gave untrue reason for the letter.
Doesn't want that to be his legacy.
Effectively, he's saying "stop tormenting us for your own entertainment" a point I make in my header.
And it seems to me in line with what the RF has been saying lately - that personal family disputes are matters which should be resolved in private. Without wishing to do exactly what I criticise others for, this seemed to me to be a message to more than just the BBC.
I am aghast really at how poor all these internal investigations are. I shouldn't be I suppose. But they are really shockingly bad.
Whereas Brexit is lifting the drawbridge and cutting yourself off from the surrounding world, whether you think that's a good thing or not.
That in no way defends failings of the BBC, just that these things happen because those involved want them - another way to say and do the same things would have been found if the BBC had not been involved.
Its sad, and the BBC acted in the wrong and I dont blame any of the family from taking strong, harsh views as a result. But the interview was still surely a symptom of the issues, not a cause.
The test for Charles and William will be if they can adjust to being more careful with their words once they become Sovereign. If they can't then it doesn't matter what the opinion polls say, it will lead to trouble.
There will not be zero tariffs with Australia for at least 15 years by which time a different government will likely be in power anyway.
As was correctly pointed out on QT last night the main market Australian farmers are targeting is China and the Asian market not the UK anyway while British farmers will get easier access for their exports to Australia
Film is a very powerful medium because it can be framed, reshot, heavily edited and overlaid with emotional music and narrative to tell the story it wants to tell - it might make good entertainment but that doesn't make it accurate.
Don't take my word for it - read the comprehensive debunking online by those misrepresented in it, several biologists and even in the Independent and Guardian.
DB also has a labyrinthine structure, which makes one hand not knowing what the other is doing very easy.
The German issue relates to the way that DB is involved with all German politicians at national level (and alot at lower levels). A scandal there would be an Italian style wipe out of politicians, I reckon.
https://seed126.bitchute.com/RP8fWG6CfR1V/BQlBrXONlZkI.mp4
If she had had properly organised security, people would have checked on each other for issues. In addition, her driver would have been one of the security team. So she wouldn't have been driven by a semi-functional alcoholic.
Her previous close protection was someone I knew well. He left the post because his son was terminally ill with leukemia. Her death lies heavily on his conscience. "She would not have died on my watch", he told me.
But yes - an internal investigations team has to have independence to do its job and to be trusted, both internally and externally. That requires strong leadership and a very clear understanding by the team about what they are doing and why, a refusal to be bullied, a thick skin. It also requires good governance ie reporting lines need to be sufficiently independent and an ability to manage conflicts of interest properly, including bringing people in from outside where necessary.
Above all, it needs the organisation at a senior level to understand the value of such a team and the work it does.That is what is often missing because until you have had a near death experience from the failure to do these things properly you don't really see the value and do prioritise minimising embarrassment etc as you say.
My time at my bank could have been characterised in two halves: before the financial crisis, I did a great job, built up my credit, everyone loved me for sorting out their messes but very hard to get the budget and resources I really needed and no-one really listened when I told them these were more than 1 or 2 rotten apples.
After: it was all "Oh shit, you were right. Thank God you're here. What do you need? We must listen to you. We're going to show your talks to all our regulators and staff to show how we take this stuff seriously." (The phrase "I fucking told you so!" may even have been expressed, once or twice.)
From Cassandra to some sort of Superwoman.
I see the same issues in other sectors. I have written about this on my work blog. But finance was lucky in really being forced to confront its failings. Most other sectors and organizations aren't and don't want to. Which is why you get the same thing going on over and over again. See the police. Or the NHS, for example.
By nailing the country to a hard Brexit, he ensures that this will be his legacy. Even though, as Frostie's remarks this week show, things aren't exactly going to plan.
Maybe, like a gambler conscious of having lost a bit, the plan is to double down to make it up. Not a strategy that always works.
As for the deal, no harm in having one, but the angel and the devil will be in the details. Have food and environmental standards been protected, as we were promised? What has the UK got in exchange? Have the UK negotiators leveraged the value of access to the UK market, or have signed what was put in front of us? Does going slower as part of a bigger block get you a more advantageous deal in the end?
Some of these questions might eventually be answered.
She was forced out. Apparently she upset people by talking too much about the accident and suggesting that different actions could have led to a different result.
In the review of the Columbia accident, a number of outsiders noted that NASA was very good at thinking that "nothing can be done".
It's a small sector of the economy and it will make food marginally cheaper. Whether that's worth losing much of our farming tradition is a question that we can debate, but it's a real one. I'm by no means a traditionalist, and I have an ulterior motive - I disapprove of the very low welfare staandards in much of Australian and US agriculture. But I'd have thought Conservative MPs would be dubious anyway.
https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1395655877043097600
That is partly because it is so huge.
If that's the best argument you can come up with it's easily debunked.
A better question would be does the food meet the high UK standards given that a lot of current Australian exports are to countries with far lower standards.
As someone who rather likes red meat, lamb especially, this is not an observation that I find instinctively attractive but the evidence that red meat production is bad for global warming seems pretty compelling.
Indeed, the trade deal with Australia is probably going to be the biggest trade deal this government will ever get until the next election that the EU had not already negotiated anyway
He's just a religious zealot on this issue.
If supermarkets want Union Flags on their meat let them do so.
If companies like McDonald's want to advertise that they use "100% British and Irish" meat let them do so.
If consumers want to buy Aussie beef let them do so. Its very good quality stuff in general and good value for money.
Free choice.
I think a zero tariff/zero quota deal with the USA would be fantastic news - but I can't see the Americans agreeing to it unlike the Aussies.
Its entirely safe and there's no scientific or health reason not to do it.
"According to research by the European Federation of Animal Health, a single consumer would need to eat more than 77 kilograms of beef from an HGP-treated beast in one sitting to get the same level of oestrogen hormone found in one egg."
https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/generalissues/hormonalgrowth/Pages/default.aspx
Theresa Villiers, the environment secretary, has stated categorically that Britain will maintain the EU’s ban on meat from cattle treated with growth hormones.
This is the producers’ side of the argument for why that’s ok. I can see why this might be troubling to a vegetarian but not to a meat eater. What’s the argument against beyond “you kill them sooner” which is the flip side of the efficiency gains posted here?
I can seem some discussion about one hormone being linked to cancer, and I’d want to see the numbers on that. But currently, I can’t find a killer argument against.
Funny how all those who claim that Britain can't do certain things as its "against WTO rules" ignore the fact that the EU is flouting WTO rules here with this ridiculous non-tariff barrier.
The sooner its dropped the better. If its dropped as part of this trade agreement even better, a side-bonus from Brexit. 👍
Buying food from the land downunder does not.
The only thing people have legitimate concerns over is protectionism. Sticking a flag on stuff deals with that, if you're worried about whether your food is British or not buy something with a Union Jack and move on. For Scottish readers: Other flags are available.
Something tells me that won't give you cancer.
Agree that we need to see what is in about welfare standards. AIUI the EU requirement to restrict beef with hormone treatments has been declared legal at WTO level.
Having said that I dropped a note to my MP asking that there be backstops. Again, the EU beef deal with Australia contains some sensible measures, and we don't need to commit to a complete absence of volume / tariff regulation to get this going.' Yes, the precendent is concerning for other negotiations.
Nor do we particularly have to listen to premillenial blustering about things that haven't happened yet, where there is no indication that it will happen in the way declared.
The Blackford stuff is as crazy as it usually is. It reminds me of Sturgeon's declarations that £4m of seed potato exports lost would be a "disaster" for a £3bn industry, rather than a minor pivot. He would declare Scotland to be a Brexit desert if one 6x4 greenhouse blew down in Gretna.
https://www.peta.org.au/issues/clothing/cruelty-wool/mulesing-barbaric-unnecessary-cruelty/
Also, chlorinated chicken (meaning poor welfare standards for chickens), battery farming, sow stalls, hormone-treated beef, live exports and animals transported for 48 hours without rest.
https://www.rspca.org.uk/-/news-we-urge-government-not-to-betray-voters?
These practices would need to be adopted here or our farmers would be at a competitive disadvantage.
This isn't what people voted for or what the government promised.
Veal too. Most male calves are shot at birth in the UK, and the carcases wasted as a by product of the dairy industry. Outdoor natural British veal is excellent, just hard to find.
It's like water used in cotton production. The talking heads always pick one of the poorer numbers and declare Apocalypse.
It would not be a stretch to describe the research as "industry funded" and there are some interesting studies on the differences between industry and non-industry funded research on, e.g. a whole load of human pharmaceuticals.
But anyway, isn't the concern (like with "chlorine chicken") more about what this might mean for animal welfare, not for human health?
[1] https://www.bionity.com/en/associations/27649/international-federation-for-animal-health-ifah-europe.html
(first relevant link I found, not sure they have a website)
"In order to support the transition to regenerative farming systems, which rebuild the fertility that has been lost during the intensive farming chapter, we actually need to eat more grass-fed meat, mainly beef and lamb.
“In the UK, two-thirds of the farmed area is currently pasture (grass and clover). These grasslands play a vital role in maintaining the soil carbon bank, as well as producing food we can eat, through the unique ability of ruminants to digest cellulose. Not only does this maintain a healthy soil, but the land works as a carbon sink – absorbing carbon dioxide. So, if you’re eating grass-fed beef, lamb and dairy, you can do so with a clear conscience, knowing you are part of the solution, not the problem.
“University of Oxford Professor Myles Allen has recalculated the amount of methane emissions from ruminants: https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-news-climate-pollutants-gwp/ As a result, he’s calling into question all the conclusions of the recent reports on climate change and agriculture. The inference from this new research is that we don’t have to stop eating grass-fed cattle or sheep.
“Instead of demonising livestock in general and cattle and sheep in particular, we need to differentiate between the animals that are part of the problem, namely intensively produced poultry, pork and diary products, and those that are part of the solution, namely grass-fed ruminants. At the root of the climate change problem is our fossil fuel consumption, this is where we need to take the most urgent action”.
https://reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/nh3o3g/oc_covid19_vaccination_doses_administered_per_100/
The US has mandatory country of origin labelling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_country-of-origin_labeling_of_food_sold_in_the_United_States
Anyone who thinks that Americans don't want "made in America" allowed to be labelled on stuff has never been to America.