Vibeshift update – politicalbetting.com

Scott_xP said:

I am aware of the Trek bias from the mods here, but even so the discussion of Andor Season 2 has been light...

The obvious political point to make from it is, it was shot in the UK. The Mad King would kill it if he could

(New thread just started as I posted this, as if to prove my point)

Phil said:

Andor Season 2 was fantastic. A stellar cast at the absolute top of their game. It says something that the title character was no-where near the best actor in the series: he’d be lucky to make top 5.

Scott_xP said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Poe Dameron is [redacted]’s son, that’s my latest theory.

Widely debunked

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

I am aware of the Trek bias from the mods here, but even so the discussion of Andor Season 2 has been light...

The obvious political point to make from it is, it was shot in the UK. The Mad King would kill it if he could

(New thread just started as I posted this, as if to prove my point)

Star Wars is shit

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

I am aware of the Trek bias from the mods here, but even so the discussion of Andor Season 2 has been light...

The obvious political point to make from it is, it was shot in the UK. The Mad King would kill it if he could

(New thread just started as I posted this, as if to prove my point)

Star Wars is shit

Correction - Disney Star Wars is shit.

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

I am aware of the Trek bias from the mods here, but even so the discussion of Andor Season 2 has been light...

The obvious political point to make from it is, it was shot in the UK. The Mad King would kill it if he could

(New thread just started as I posted this, as if to prove my point)

Star Wars is shit

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

I am aware of the Trek bias from the mods here, but even so the discussion of Andor Season 2 has been light...

The obvious political point to make from it is, it was shot in the UK. The Mad King would kill it if he could

(New thread just started as I posted this, as if to prove my point)

Star Wars is shit

Phil said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

I am aware of the Trek bias from the mods here, but even so the discussion of Andor Season 2 has been light...

The obvious political point to make from it is, it was shot in the UK. The Mad King would kill it if he could

(New thread just started as I posted this, as if to prove my point)

Star Wars is shit

Correction - Disney Star Wars is shit.

Nearly all Disney Star Wars has been shit: Andor is the standout exception. It stands on it‘s own, even without the franchise behind it, yet works within that franchise to deepen & enrich it.

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Ratters said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

nico67 said:

TimS said:

The BBC commentary on this deal encapsulates one of the reasons the pro-European cause has had such a poor run in recent years.

Opening sentence: “this is undoubtedly a significant deal. In a funny way, though, for Sir Keir Starmer to succeed he needs it to seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as
possible”.

I couldn’t disagree more. This has been the repeated failing of politicians on Europe. They fear the Eurosceptics and the Daily Mail, so they play down the positives and understate everything. Which means voters don’t notice or appreciate the good stuff while the silence then leaves the floor for the Mail et al to paint their own pictures. And the understatement just makes them look shifty.

Shout it from the rooftops for once. Take control of the narrative. Does Trump try to make all his new measures seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as possible? No.

The BBC seems to be turning into GB News with its negative slant . And Chris Mason is just parroting the betrayal narrative with his ridiculous question .

Yes, BBC R4 news summary at 2pm was: Starmer's done a deal with the EU. Some fishermen are unhappy. Farage and Badenoch are unhappy. Then Lord Frost featured, being scathing. That was it. Utterly unbalanced.

I'm a Leaver and abhor this craven, useless government , yet I am essentially content with this deal. It is a sensible compromise between two powers that are bound to trade freely, and benefit from doing so

On the face of it, it is not the capitulation I expected from Starmer and his team. They have won real positives in return for a surrender on fishing. Both sides stand to gain

So if they can persuade an enemy like me that this is Not Bad, even Quite Good, then they should be able to persuade Britain. This is on the Labour comms team. Can they do it?

Ultimately this will help in the real world, and a non-insignificant proportion of the public will notice before 2028/9:
- People don't like queueing at the "slow lane" at airports. Let's assume it's not ready by this summer, but people will notice in the next couple of years.
- Both parents and young people will like the youth mobility scheme.
- The food deal means we can export more to Europe again: real world benefit with little cost given our standard are already aligned
- ...fishing "sell out" keeps the status quo except our fishermen can now export back into Europe much more easily (so a net improvement even there)
- Defence and security pact important given Russia/Ukraine/Trump dynamic, and will benefit our defence companies down the line

Think back to Brexit negotiations: there was much talk of "the four freedoms are indivisible". Well, Starmer has just carved out being (essentially) part of the single market for food, fish, energy and defence, while not conceding on freedom of movement where it matters.

Clearly there's lots of detail to be ironed out, but it's a step in the right direction.

Not really, the UK has become a rule taker on food regulation which I hope a future government will reverse. It's dynamic alignment all over again which the Tories rightly refused and Labour have just given in. Useless

We have? Trump was lobbied hard to impose US rules on the UK. We did not take those rules and said no. In this new SPS deal we have the right to be consulted early about changes to food standards.

Remember that as things stands we are already aligned with the EU. Both UK and EU are committed to only raising standards so the only debate is how fast those improvements are being made.

Consulted just means ignored in reality. Didn't we also have a right to a consultation on reducing the CAP when Blair gave up a third of the rebate? Our politicians never learn.

There is a basic problem - we can't dictate standards to others. With so much of UK food and drink imported and exported, creating separate standards for GB and NI/EU just isn't viable. Even creating separate GB labelling has been a ballache, with UKCA an expensive woeful misstep which thankfully we dropped.

We are of course free to set higher food standards than the EU, just not lower standards. Which in essence is what you are proposing that we do.

RochdalePioneers said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Ratters said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

nico67 said:

TimS said:

The BBC commentary on this deal encapsulates one of the reasons the pro-European cause has had such a poor run in recent years.

Opening sentence: “this is undoubtedly a significant deal. In a funny way, though, for Sir Keir Starmer to succeed he needs it to seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as
possible”.

I couldn’t disagree more. This has been the repeated failing of politicians on Europe. They fear the Eurosceptics and the Daily Mail, so they play down the positives and understate everything. Which means voters don’t notice or appreciate the good stuff while the silence then leaves the floor for the Mail et al to paint their own pictures. And the understatement just makes them look shifty.

Shout it from the rooftops for once. Take control of the narrative. Does Trump try to make all his new measures seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as possible? No.

The BBC seems to be turning into GB News with its negative slant . And Chris Mason is just parroting the betrayal narrative with his ridiculous question .

Yes, BBC R4 news summary at 2pm was: Starmer's done a deal with the EU. Some fishermen are unhappy. Farage and Badenoch are unhappy. Then Lord Frost featured, being scathing. That was it. Utterly unbalanced.

I'm a Leaver and abhor this craven, useless government , yet I am essentially content with this deal. It is a sensible compromise between two powers that are bound to trade freely, and benefit from doing so

On the face of it, it is not the capitulation I expected from Starmer and his team. They have won real positives in return for a surrender on fishing. Both sides stand to gain

So if they can persuade an enemy like me that this is Not Bad, even Quite Good, then they should be able to persuade Britain. This is on the Labour comms team. Can they do it?

Ultimately this will help in the real world, and a non-insignificant proportion of the public will notice before 2028/9:
- People don't like queueing at the "slow lane" at airports. Let's assume it's not ready by this summer, but people will notice in the next couple of years.
- Both parents and young people will like the youth mobility scheme.
- The food deal means we can export more to Europe again: real world benefit with little cost given our standard are already aligned
- ...fishing "sell out" keeps the status quo except our fishermen can now export back into Europe much more easily (so a net improvement even there)
- Defence and security pact important given Russia/Ukraine/Trump dynamic, and will benefit our defence companies down the line

Think back to Brexit negotiations: there was much talk of "the four freedoms are indivisible". Well, Starmer has just carved out being (essentially) part of the single market for food, fish, energy and defence, while not conceding on freedom of movement where it matters.

Clearly there's lots of detail to be ironed out, but it's a step in the right direction.

Not really, the UK has become a rule taker on food regulation which I hope a future government will reverse. It's dynamic alignment all over again which the Tories rightly refused and Labour have just given in. Useless

We have? Trump was lobbied hard to impose US rules on the UK. We did not take those rules and said no. In this new SPS deal we have the right to be consulted early about changes to food standards.

Remember that as things stands we are already aligned with the EU. Both UK and EU are committed to only raising standards so the only debate is how fast those improvements are being made.

Consulted just means ignored in reality. Didn't we also have a right to a consultation on reducing the CAP when Blair gave up a third of the rebate? Our politicians never learn.

I'm trying to get worked up about this deal.... but I can't

It's OK, fuck it, we have to follow EU rules on food so companies can have an easier time exporting there. I hate the ECJ doing anything over our heads but... pff.... it's biscuits and sausages

Also if we are going to follow any food standards I would genuinely prefer us to go the EU way than the US way. The EU way on food is one of the few areas the EU is clearly superior by a distance

I also like the egates (even tho the EU refusing to let us use them was sheer spite in the first place); the pet passports; youth mobility - let the Spanish girls come work in our bars again

I am sorry for the fisherpeople but at least their deal hasn't gotten WORSE

The deal is not gamechanging. It's more a modest but needed rapprochement after a nasty divorce, so the kids can stop being traumatised by all the acrimony and tea-pot throwing. It will do

We can set higher standards than the EU. We can't set lower standards. Max thinks this makes us the supplicant, but we were committed to keep raising food standards already before this deal.

Fishing is a political issue not a real issue. Large chunks of the fishing industry are delighted and have said so. Pelagic says its a disaster but they said the 2020 deal was a disaster - because regardless of quotas they also need to be able to trade.

The Tories say that extending their deal on fishing is surrender - so what was it when they did it? And what did they envisage when their deal expired - a better deal? With unimpeded rights to fish in Icelandic waters with no reciprocal rights in our waters? If that deal was a gimmee why didn't they negotiate it?

As you say, all in all its a better deal than we had. People are less bothered for principles like sovereignty now than they were - what they want is food on the shelves at a price they can afford.

algarkirk said:

The answer to TSE's question is unclear. However an oddity of UK politics is that no-one, especially Starmer, is distancing themselves decisively from Trump. Everyone in mainstream politics and MSM (BBC most of all) is giving him an easy ride so far.

So there is no obvious reason for the Tories or Reform to suffer.

BTW, compare our MSM with Rory and Campbell, Mooch and Kay, the big USA liberal podcasts, Washington Week, CBS, CNN, MSNBC etc. Different planets.

RochdalePioneers said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Ratters said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

nico67 said:

TimS said:

The BBC commentary on this deal encapsulates one of the reasons the pro-European cause has had such a poor run in recent years.

Opening sentence: “this is undoubtedly a significant deal. In a funny way, though, for Sir Keir Starmer to succeed he needs it to seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as
possible”.

I couldn’t disagree more. This has been the repeated failing of politicians on Europe. They fear the Eurosceptics and the Daily Mail, so they play down the positives and understate everything. Which means voters don’t notice or appreciate the good stuff while the silence then leaves the floor for the Mail et al to paint their own pictures. And the understatement just makes them look shifty.

Shout it from the rooftops for once. Take control of the narrative. Does Trump try to make all his new measures seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as possible? No.

The BBC seems to be turning into GB News with its negative slant . And Chris Mason is just parroting the betrayal narrative with his ridiculous question .

Yes, BBC R4 news summary at 2pm was: Starmer's done a deal with the EU. Some fishermen are unhappy. Farage and Badenoch are unhappy. Then Lord Frost featured, being scathing. That was it. Utterly unbalanced.

I'm a Leaver and abhor this craven, useless government , yet I am essentially content with this deal. It is a sensible compromise between two powers that are bound to trade freely, and benefit from doing so

On the face of it, it is not the capitulation I expected from Starmer and his team. They have won real positives in return for a surrender on fishing. Both sides stand to gain

So if they can persuade an enemy like me that this is Not Bad, even Quite Good, then they should be able to persuade Britain. This is on the Labour comms team. Can they do it?

Ultimately this will help in the real world, and a non-insignificant proportion of the public will notice before 2028/9:
- People don't like queueing at the "slow lane" at airports. Let's assume it's not ready by this summer, but people will notice in the next couple of years.
- Both parents and young people will like the youth mobility scheme.
- The food deal means we can export more to Europe again: real world benefit with little cost given our standard are already aligned
- ...fishing "sell out" keeps the status quo except our fishermen can now export back into Europe much more easily (so a net improvement even there)
- Defence and security pact important given Russia/Ukraine/Trump dynamic, and will benefit our defence companies down the line

Think back to Brexit negotiations: there was much talk of "the four freedoms are indivisible". Well, Starmer has just carved out being (essentially) part of the single market for food, fish, energy and defence, while not conceding on freedom of movement where it matters.

Clearly there's lots of detail to be ironed out, but it's a step in the right direction.

Not really, the UK has become a rule taker on food regulation which I hope a future government will reverse. It's dynamic alignment all over again which the Tories rightly refused and Labour have just given in. Useless

We have? Trump was lobbied hard to impose US rules on the UK. We did not take those rules and said no. In this new SPS deal we have the right to be consulted early about changes to food standards.

Remember that as things stands we are already aligned with the EU. Both UK and EU are committed to only raising standards so the only debate is how fast those improvements are being made.

Consulted just means ignored in reality. Didn't we also have a right to a consultation on reducing the CAP when Blair gave up a third of the rebate? Our politicians never learn.

I'm trying to get worked up about this deal.... but I can't

It's OK, fuck it, we have to follow EU rules on food so companies can have an easier time exporting there. I hate the ECJ doing anything over our heads but... pff.... it's biscuits and sausages

Also if we are going to follow any food standards I would genuinely prefer us to go the EU way than the US way. The EU way on food is one of the few areas the EU is clearly superior by a distance

I also like the egates (even tho the EU refusing to let us use them was sheer spite in the first place); the pet passports; youth mobility - let the Spanish girls come work in our bars again

I am sorry for the fisherpeople but at least their deal hasn't gotten WORSE

The deal is not gamechanging. It's more a modest but needed rapprochement after a nasty divorce, so the kids can stop being traumatised by all the acrimony and tea-pot throwing. It will do

We can set higher standards than the EU. We can't set lower standards. Max thinks this makes us the supplicant, but we were committed to keep raising food standards already before this deal.

Fishing is a political issue not a real issue. Large chunks of the fishing industry are delighted and have said so. Pelagic says its a disaster but they said the 2020 deal was a disaster - because regardless of quotas they also need to be able to trade.

The Tories say that extending their deal on fishing is surrender - so what was it when they did it? And what did they envisage when their deal expired - a better deal? With unimpeded rights to fish in Icelandic waters with no reciprocal rights in our waters? If that deal was a gimmee why didn't they negotiate it?

As you say, all in all its a better deal than we had. People are less bothered for principles like sovereignty now than they were - what they want is food on the shelves at a price they can afford.

Mexicanpete said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Ratters said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

nico67 said:

TimS said:

The BBC commentary on this deal encapsulates one of the reasons the pro-European cause has had such a poor run in recent years.

Opening sentence: “this is undoubtedly a significant deal. In a funny way, though, for Sir Keir Starmer to succeed he needs it to seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as
possible”.

I couldn’t disagree more. This has been the repeated failing of politicians on Europe. They fear the Eurosceptics and the Daily Mail, so they play down the positives and understate everything. Which means voters don’t notice or appreciate the good stuff while the silence then leaves the floor for the Mail et al to paint their own pictures. And the understatement just makes them look shifty.

Shout it from the rooftops for once. Take control of the narrative. Does Trump try to make all his new measures seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as possible? No.

The BBC seems to be turning into GB News with its negative slant . And Chris Mason is just parroting the betrayal narrative with his ridiculous question .

Yes, BBC R4 news summary at 2pm was: Starmer's done a deal with the EU. Some fishermen are unhappy. Farage and Badenoch are unhappy. Then Lord Frost featured, being scathing. That was it. Utterly unbalanced.

I'm a Leaver and abhor this craven, useless government , yet I am essentially content with this deal. It is a sensible compromise between two powers that are bound to trade freely, and benefit from doing so

On the face of it, it is not the capitulation I expected from Starmer and his team. They have won real positives in return for a surrender on fishing. Both sides stand to gain

So if they can persuade an enemy like me that this is Not Bad, even Quite Good, then they should be able to persuade Britain. This is on the Labour comms team. Can they do it?

Ultimately this will help in the real world, and a non-insignificant proportion of the public will notice before 2028/9:
- People don't like queueing at the "slow lane" at airports. Let's assume it's not ready by this summer, but people will notice in the next couple of years.
- Both parents and young people will like the youth mobility scheme.
- The food deal means we can export more to Europe again: real world benefit with little cost given our standard are already aligned
- ...fishing "sell out" keeps the status quo except our fishermen can now export back into Europe much more easily (so a net improvement even there)
- Defence and security pact important given Russia/Ukraine/Trump dynamic, and will benefit our defence companies down the line

Think back to Brexit negotiations: there was much talk of "the four freedoms are indivisible". Well, Starmer has just carved out being (essentially) part of the single market for food, fish, energy and defence, while not conceding on freedom of movement where it matters.

Clearly there's lots of detail to be ironed out, but it's a step in the right direction.

Not really, the UK has become a rule taker on food regulation which I hope a future government will reverse. It's dynamic alignment all over again which the Tories rightly refused and Labour have just given in. Useless

We have? Trump was lobbied hard to impose US rules on the UK. We did not take those rules and said no. In this new SPS deal we have the right to be consulted early about changes to food standards.

Remember that as things stands we are already aligned with the EU. Both UK and EU are committed to only raising standards so the only debate is how fast those improvements are being made.

Consulted just means ignored in reality. Didn't we also have a right to a consultation on reducing the CAP when Blair gave up a third of the rebate? Our politicians never learn.

I'm trying to get worked up about this deal.... but I can't

It's OK, fuck it, we have to follow EU rules on food so companies can have an easier time exporting there. I hate the ECJ doing anything over our heads but... pff.... it's biscuits and sausages

Also if we are going to follow any food standards I would genuinely prefer us to go the EU way than the US way. The EU way on food is one of the few areas the EU is clearly superior by a distance

I also like the egates (even tho the EU refusing to let us use them was sheer spite in the first place); the pet passports; youth mobility - let the Spanish girls come work in our bars again

I am sorry for the fisherpeople but at least their deal hasn't gotten WORSE

The deal is not gamechanging. It's more a modest but needed rapprochement after a nasty divorce, so the kids can stop being traumatised by all the acrimony and tea-pot throwing. It will do

We can set higher standards than the EU. We can't set lower standards. Max thinks this makes us the supplicant, but we were committed to keep raising food standards already before this deal.

Fishing is a political issue not a real issue. Large chunks of the fishing industry are delighted and have said so. Pelagic says its a disaster but they said the 2020 deal was a disaster - because regardless of quotas they also need to be able to trade.

The Tories say that extending their deal on fishing is surrender - so what was it when they did it? And what did they envisage when their deal expired - a better deal? With unimpeded rights to fish in Icelandic waters with no reciprocal rights in our waters? If that deal was a gimmee why didn't they negotiate it?

As you say, all in all its a better deal than we had. People are less bothered for principles like sovereignty now than they were - what they want is food on the shelves at a price they can afford.

From the perspective of a Remainer the deal is pretty much small potatoes. Other than an extension of the fishing quotas timeline (which of course was part of the magnificent "oven ready" deal) we don't seem to have given much away, but then again we don't seem to have achieved much either. Although is that likely when at the start of any negotiation we put the immigration from Europe gun to the EU's head?

Ironically these small steps are shouted down as a capitulation by the very people who capitulated in 2019.

Leon said:

What do we think this will do to polling?

I reckon: a small nudge up for Labour in Voting Intention

A larger nudge up for Starmer's personal polling as he is seen to do something that, for once, is not obviously and immediately disastrous

Leon said:

What do we think this will do to polling?

I reckon: a small nudge up for Labour in Voting Intention

A larger nudge up for Starmer's personal polling as he is seen to do something that, for once, is not obviously and immediately disastrous

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Ratters said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

nico67 said:

TimS said:

The BBC commentary on this deal encapsulates one of the reasons the pro-European cause has had such a poor run in recent years.

Opening sentence: “this is undoubtedly a significant deal. In a funny way, though, for Sir Keir Starmer to succeed he needs it to seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as
possible”.

I couldn’t disagree more. This has been the repeated failing of politicians on Europe. They fear the Eurosceptics and the Daily Mail, so they play down the positives and understate everything. Which means voters don’t notice or appreciate the good stuff while the silence then leaves the floor for the Mail et al to paint their own pictures. And the understatement just makes them look shifty.

Shout it from the rooftops for once. Take control of the narrative. Does Trump try to make all his new measures seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as possible? No.

The BBC seems to be turning into GB News with its negative slant . And Chris Mason is just parroting the betrayal narrative with his ridiculous question .

Yes, BBC R4 news summary at 2pm was: Starmer's done a deal with the EU. Some fishermen are unhappy. Farage and Badenoch are unhappy. Then Lord Frost featured, being scathing. That was it. Utterly unbalanced.

I'm a Leaver and abhor this craven, useless government , yet I am essentially content with this deal. It is a sensible compromise between two powers that are bound to trade freely, and benefit from doing so

On the face of it, it is not the capitulation I expected from Starmer and his team. They have won real positives in return for a surrender on fishing. Both sides stand to gain

So if they can persuade an enemy like me that this is Not Bad, even Quite Good, then they should be able to persuade Britain. This is on the Labour comms team. Can they do it?

Ultimately this will help in the real world, and a non-insignificant proportion of the public will notice before 2028/9:
- People don't like queueing at the "slow lane" at airports. Let's assume it's not ready by this summer, but people will notice in the next couple of years.
- Both parents and young people will like the youth mobility scheme.
- The food deal means we can export more to Europe again: real world benefit with little cost given our standard are already aligned
- ...fishing "sell out" keeps the status quo except our fishermen can now export back into Europe much more easily (so a net improvement even there)
- Defence and security pact important given Russia/Ukraine/Trump dynamic, and will benefit our defence companies down the line

Think back to Brexit negotiations: there was much talk of "the four freedoms are indivisible". Well, Starmer has just carved out being (essentially) part of the single market for food, fish, energy and defence, while not conceding on freedom of movement where it matters.

Clearly there's lots of detail to be ironed out, but it's a step in the right direction.

Not really, the UK has become a rule taker on food regulation which I hope a future government will reverse. It's dynamic alignment all over again which the Tories rightly refused and Labour have just given in. Useless

We have? Trump was lobbied hard to impose US rules on the UK. We did not take those rules and said no. In this new SPS deal we have the right to be consulted early about changes to food standards.

Remember that as things stands we are already aligned with the EU. Both UK and EU are committed to only raising standards so the only debate is how fast those improvements are being made.

Consulted just means ignored in reality. Didn't we also have a right to a consultation on reducing the CAP when Blair gave up a third of the rebate? Our politicians never learn.

I'm trying to get worked up about this deal.... but I can't

It's OK, fuck it, we have to follow EU rules on food so companies can have an easier time exporting there. I hate the ECJ doing anything over our heads but... pff.... it's biscuits and sausages

Also if we are going to follow any food standards I would genuinely prefer us to go the EU way than the US way. The EU way on food is one of the few areas the EU is clearly superior by a distance

I also like the egates (even tho the EU refusing to let us use them was sheer spite in the first place); the pet passports; youth mobility - let the Spanish girls come work in our bars again

I am sorry for the fisherpeople but at least their deal hasn't gotten WORSE

The deal is not gamechanging. It's more a modest but needed rapprochement after a nasty divorce, so the kids can stop being traumatised by all the acrimony and tea-pot throwing. It will do

Yes, I'm not particularly fussed either way, but it will mean that some gene editing and the UK's food biotech industry is now regulated from Brussels rather than from Westminster, it's an area where the UK is probably among the global leaders and the EU very much not so expect hostile regulations from Brussels to damage what is currently a small but very fast growing industry in this country. I expect what could have become a $10bn industry might just end up being strangled at birth or just end up being sold to US competitors for the IP and then once the EU catches up to where we would have been otherwise it will be too late and we'll end up having to import the IP/licences from the US.

It's probably not a deal breaker but it's a definite downside risk factor in that it doesn't necessarily kill many jobs today but it will probably prevent us from having a big food biotech industry.

Yes, that's the one area that genuinely troubles me

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Ratters said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

nico67 said:

TimS said:

The BBC commentary on this deal encapsulates one of the reasons the pro-European cause has had such a poor run in recent years.

Opening sentence: “this is undoubtedly a significant deal. In a funny way, though, for Sir Keir Starmer to succeed he needs it to seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as
possible”.

I couldn’t disagree more. This has been the repeated failing of politicians on Europe. They fear the Eurosceptics and the Daily Mail, so they play down the positives and understate everything. Which means voters don’t notice or appreciate the good stuff while the silence then leaves the floor for the Mail et al to paint their own pictures. And the understatement just makes them look shifty.

Shout it from the rooftops for once. Take control of the narrative. Does Trump try to make all his new measures seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as possible? No.

The BBC seems to be turning into GB News with its negative slant . And Chris Mason is just parroting the betrayal narrative with his ridiculous question .

Yes, BBC R4 news summary at 2pm was: Starmer's done a deal with the EU. Some fishermen are unhappy. Farage and Badenoch are unhappy. Then Lord Frost featured, being scathing. That was it. Utterly unbalanced.

I'm a Leaver and abhor this craven, useless government , yet I am essentially content with this deal. It is a sensible compromise between two powers that are bound to trade freely, and benefit from doing so

On the face of it, it is not the capitulation I expected from Starmer and his team. They have won real positives in return for a surrender on fishing. Both sides stand to gain

So if they can persuade an enemy like me that this is Not Bad, even Quite Good, then they should be able to persuade Britain. This is on the Labour comms team. Can they do it?

Ultimately this will help in the real world, and a non-insignificant proportion of the public will notice before 2028/9:
- People don't like queueing at the "slow lane" at airports. Let's assume it's not ready by this summer, but people will notice in the next couple of years.
- Both parents and young people will like the youth mobility scheme.
- The food deal means we can export more to Europe again: real world benefit with little cost given our standard are already aligned
- ...fishing "sell out" keeps the status quo except our fishermen can now export back into Europe much more easily (so a net improvement even there)
- Defence and security pact important given Russia/Ukraine/Trump dynamic, and will benefit our defence companies down the line

Think back to Brexit negotiations: there was much talk of "the four freedoms are indivisible". Well, Starmer has just carved out being (essentially) part of the single market for food, fish, energy and defence, while not conceding on freedom of movement where it matters.

Clearly there's lots of detail to be ironed out, but it's a step in the right direction.

Not really, the UK has become a rule taker on food regulation which I hope a future government will reverse. It's dynamic alignment all over again which the Tories rightly refused and Labour have just given in. Useless

We have? Trump was lobbied hard to impose US rules on the UK. We did not take those rules and said no. In this new SPS deal we have the right to be consulted early about changes to food standards.

Remember that as things stands we are already aligned with the EU. Both UK and EU are committed to only raising standards so the only debate is how fast those improvements are being made.

Consulted just means ignored in reality. Didn't we also have a right to a consultation on reducing the CAP when Blair gave up a third of the rebate? Our politicians never learn.

I'm trying to get worked up about this deal.... but I can't

It's OK, fuck it, we have to follow EU rules on food so companies can have an easier time exporting there. I hate the ECJ doing anything over our heads but... pff.... it's biscuits and sausages

Also if we are going to follow any food standards I would genuinely prefer us to go the EU way than the US way. The EU way on food is one of the few areas the EU is clearly superior by a distance

I also like the egates (even tho the EU refusing to let us use them was sheer spite in the first place); the pet passports; youth mobility - let the Spanish girls come work in our bars again

I am sorry for the fisherpeople but at least their deal hasn't gotten WORSE

The deal is not gamechanging. It's more a modest but needed rapprochement after a nasty divorce, so the kids can stop being traumatised by all the acrimony and tea-pot throwing. It will do

Yes, I'm not particularly fussed either way, but it will mean that some gene editing and the UK's food biotech industry is now regulated from Brussels rather than from Westminster, it's an area where the UK is probably among the global leaders and the EU very much not so expect hostile regulations from Brussels to damage what is currently a small but very fast growing industry in this country. I expect what could have become a $10bn industry might just end up being strangled at birth or just end up being sold to US competitors for the IP and then once the EU catches up to where we would have been otherwise it will be too late and we'll end up having to import the IP/licences from the US.

It's probably not a deal breaker but it's a definite downside risk factor in that it doesn't necessarily kill many jobs today but it will probably prevent us from having a big food biotech industry.

Yes, that's the one area that genuinely troubles me

Indeed, and this is what I mean by being a rule taker. Dynamic alignment vs mutual standards recognition was always the debate and the government basically just waved the white flag. I think this is a short term gain for a probable long term loss overall because Brussels is a poorer regulator. Just as the government is pushing UK regulators for a growth agenda we've signed away food regulation to a known entity which is a big drag on growth. However, given that the industry is small it won't be a huge overall loss in near terms and really we'll never know what would have happened otherwise so will we miss what we never had?

Taz said:

bondegezou said:

bondegezou said:

Taz said:

bondegezou said:

Oh, look, the IDF's claims of Hamas tunnels under a hospital they repeatedly attacked turned out not to be under the hospital: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-16/israeli-video-claimed-hamas-tunnels-gaza-hospital-different/105299312

Let’s face it, no western govt will call them out and no one will be held to account for it.

The IDF will just carry on without fear of any comeback. No one will ever stand trial.

The international war crimes tribunal, or whatever it is called, is merely a tool of western hegemony used to prosecute African Warlords and East Europeans. You will never see an American, Brit, Israeli or other western soldier there.

No nation should Co-operate with it.

I partly agree, but I'd say that the International Criminal Court is trying to do more. It has indicted Netanyahu and the Israeli defence minister. The problem is precisely that lots of nations won't co-operate with it (and Trump is actively trying to destroy it).

Since its first indictment in 8 July 2005, the ICC's record is:

Indicted but at large: 28
Died before being detained: 8
Detained in pre-trial phase: 1
Trial ongoing: 4
Died in custody: 1
Acquitted or charges dismissed/withdrawn: 15
Served or serving sentence: 9

Presumably the 9 serving time are East Europeans and African warlords.

You only have to look at the U.K. and how the murderous Marine A was treated as a victim and fetishised by some in the media and on daytime TV.

Leon said:

"Third man arested over Starmer firebombs"

Telegraph

This weird story gets weirder and weirder, and still no one has a sane theory in place

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

"Third man arested over Starmer firebombs"

Telegraph

This weird story gets weirder and weirder, and still no one has a sane theory in place

Difficult to decide which is weirder: this one or the Lammy taxi affair.

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Ratters said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

nico67 said:

TimS said:

The BBC commentary on this deal encapsulates one of the reasons the pro-European cause has had such a poor run in recent years.

Opening sentence: “this is undoubtedly a significant deal. In a funny way, though, for Sir Keir Starmer to succeed he needs it to seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as
possible”.

I couldn’t disagree more. This has been the repeated failing of politicians on Europe. They fear the Eurosceptics and the Daily Mail, so they play down the positives and understate everything. Which means voters don’t notice or appreciate the good stuff while the silence then leaves the floor for the Mail et al to paint their own pictures. And the understatement just makes them look shifty.

Shout it from the rooftops for once. Take control of the narrative. Does Trump try to make all his new measures seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as possible? No.

The BBC seems to be turning into GB News with its negative slant . And Chris Mason is just parroting the betrayal narrative with his ridiculous question .

Yes, BBC R4 news summary at 2pm was: Starmer's done a deal with the EU. Some fishermen are unhappy. Farage and Badenoch are unhappy. Then Lord Frost featured, being scathing. That was it. Utterly unbalanced.

I'm a Leaver and abhor this craven, useless government , yet I am essentially content with this deal. It is a sensible compromise between two powers that are bound to trade freely, and benefit from doing so

On the face of it, it is not the capitulation I expected from Starmer and his team. They have won real positives in return for a surrender on fishing. Both sides stand to gain

So if they can persuade an enemy like me that this is Not Bad, even Quite Good, then they should be able to persuade Britain. This is on the Labour comms team. Can they do it?

Ultimately this will help in the real world, and a non-insignificant proportion of the public will notice before 2028/9:
- People don't like queueing at the "slow lane" at airports. Let's assume it's not ready by this summer, but people will notice in the next couple of years.
- Both parents and young people will like the youth mobility scheme.
- The food deal means we can export more to Europe again: real world benefit with little cost given our standard are already aligned
- ...fishing "sell out" keeps the status quo except our fishermen can now export back into Europe much more easily (so a net improvement even there)
- Defence and security pact important given Russia/Ukraine/Trump dynamic, and will benefit our defence companies down the line

Think back to Brexit negotiations: there was much talk of "the four freedoms are indivisible". Well, Starmer has just carved out being (essentially) part of the single market for food, fish, energy and defence, while not conceding on freedom of movement where it matters.

Clearly there's lots of detail to be ironed out, but it's a step in the right direction.

Not really, the UK has become a rule taker on food regulation which I hope a future government will reverse. It's dynamic alignment all over again which the Tories rightly refused and Labour have just given in. Useless

We have? Trump was lobbied hard to impose US rules on the UK. We did not take those rules and said no. In this new SPS deal we have the right to be consulted early about changes to food standards.

Remember that as things stands we are already aligned with the EU. Both UK and EU are committed to only raising standards so the only debate is how fast those improvements are being made.

Consulted just means ignored in reality. Didn't we also have a right to a consultation on reducing the CAP when Blair gave up a third of the rebate? Our politicians never learn.

There is a basic problem - we can't dictate standards to others. With so much of UK food and drink imported and exported, creating separate standards for GB and NI/EU just isn't viable. Even creating separate GB labelling has been a ballache, with UKCA an expensive woeful misstep which thankfully we dropped.

We are of course free to set higher food standards than the EU, just not lower standards. Which in essence is what you are proposing that we do.

Creating different standards 100% is viable. It may be a headache but if that's the choice we make, suck it up. No reason you can't put a sticker on something saying "not for EU" ... oh wait, they already do that, perfectly viably.

Its not a linear scale, different is not necessarily either higher or lower.

Much EU red tape is bad policy based on protecting producer interests, with no regard to the consumer. That's awful protectionism which should be axed.

Axing protectionism that is not necessary is now a "lower" standard.

MaxPB said:

IanB2 said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Ratters said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

nico67 said:

TimS said:

The BBC commentary on this deal encapsulates one of the reasons the pro-European cause has had such a poor run in recent years.

Opening sentence: “this is undoubtedly a significant deal. In a funny way, though, for Sir Keir Starmer to succeed he needs it to seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as
possible”.

I couldn’t disagree more. This has been the repeated failing of politicians on Europe. They fear the Eurosceptics and the Daily Mail, so they play down the positives and understate everything. Which means voters don’t notice or appreciate the good stuff while the silence then leaves the floor for the Mail et al to paint their own pictures. And the understatement just makes them look shifty.

Shout it from the rooftops for once. Take control of the narrative. Does Trump try to make all his new measures seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as possible? No.

The BBC seems to be turning into GB News with its negative slant . And Chris Mason is just parroting the betrayal narrative with his ridiculous question .

Yes, BBC R4 news summary at 2pm was: Starmer's done a deal with the EU. Some fishermen are unhappy. Farage and Badenoch are unhappy. Then Lord Frost featured, being scathing. That was it. Utterly unbalanced.

I'm a Leaver and abhor this craven, useless government , yet I am essentially content with this deal. It is a sensible compromise between two powers that are bound to trade freely, and benefit from doing so

On the face of it, it is not the capitulation I expected from Starmer and his team. They have won real positives in return for a surrender on fishing. Both sides stand to gain

So if they can persuade an enemy like me that this is Not Bad, even Quite Good, then they should be able to persuade Britain. This is on the Labour comms team. Can they do it?

Ultimately this will help in the real world, and a non-insignificant proportion of the public will notice before 2028/9:
- People don't like queueing at the "slow lane" at airports. Let's assume it's not ready by this summer, but people will notice in the next couple of years.
- Both parents and young people will like the youth mobility scheme.
- The food deal means we can export more to Europe again: real world benefit with little cost given our standard are already aligned
- ...fishing "sell out" keeps the status quo except our fishermen can now export back into Europe much more easily (so a net improvement even there)
- Defence and security pact important given Russia/Ukraine/Trump dynamic, and will benefit our defence companies down the line

Think back to Brexit negotiations: there was much talk of "the four freedoms are indivisible". Well, Starmer has just carved out being (essentially) part of the single market for food, fish, energy and defence, while not conceding on freedom of movement where it matters.

Clearly there's lots of detail to be ironed out, but it's a step in the right direction.

Not really, the UK has become a rule taker on food regulation which I hope a future government will reverse. It's dynamic alignment all over again which the Tories rightly refused and Labour have just given in. Useless

We have? Trump was lobbied hard to impose US rules on the UK. We did not take those rules and said no. In this new SPS deal we have the right to be consulted early about changes to food standards.

Remember that as things stands we are already aligned with the EU. Both UK and EU are committed to only raising standards so the only debate is how fast those improvements are being made.

Consulted just means ignored in reality. Didn't we also have a right to a consultation on reducing the CAP when Blair gave up a third of the rebate? Our politicians never learn.

I'm trying to get worked up about this deal.... but I can't

It's OK, fuck it, we have to follow EU rules on food so companies can have an easier time exporting there. I hate the ECJ doing anything over our heads but... pff.... it's biscuits and sausages

Also if we are going to follow any food standards I would genuinely prefer us to go the EU way than the US way. The EU way on food is one of the few areas the EU is clearly superior by a distance

I also like the egates (even tho the EU refusing to let us use them was sheer spite in the first place); the pet passports; youth mobility - let the Spanish girls come work in our bars again

I am sorry for the fisherpeople but at least their deal hasn't gotten WORSE

The deal is not gamechanging. It's more a modest but needed rapprochement after a nasty divorce, so the kids can stop being traumatised by all the acrimony and tea-pot throwing. It will do

Yes, I'm not particularly fussed either way, but it will mean that some gene editing and the UK's food biotech industry is now regulated from Brussels rather than from Westminster, it's an area where the UK is probably among the global leaders and the EU very much not so expect hostile regulations from Brussels to damage what is currently a small but very fast growing industry in this country. I expect what could have become a $10bn industry might just end up being strangled at birth or just end up being sold to US competitors for the IP and then once the EU catches up to where we would have been otherwise it will be too late and we'll end up having to import the IP/licences from the US.

It's probably not a deal breaker but it's a definite downside risk factor in that it doesn't necessarily kill many jobs today but it will probably prevent us from having a big food biotech industry.

Yes, that's the one area that genuinely troubles me

Indeed, and this is what I mean by being a rule taker. Dynamic alignment vs mutual standards recognition was always the debate and the government basically just waved the white flag. I think this is a short term gain for a probable long term loss overall because Brussels is a poorer regulator. Just as the government is pushing UK regulators for a growth agenda we've signed away food regulation to a known entity which is a big drag on growth. However, given that the industry is small it won't be a huge overall loss in near terms and really we'll never know what would have happened otherwise so will we miss what we never had?

The previous government had eight years to come up with some ideas as to how diverging standards might benefit us, and of course they didn’t, because the downsides would have outweighed any upside.

We diverged on AI regulations quite substantially and the UK's AI industry is larger than the EU27 combined by quite a large amount. That's hundreds of thousands of very highly paid jobs in the UK that would otherwise be in the US or somewhere in Asia and it's still our fastest growing industry and will likely become position 3 after finance and pharma in the next decade.

Gene editing and food biotech is/was the next big divergence that could drive a big new UK industry to make up for lost EU exports but alas we may never know as I suspect the innovators will sell their nascent startups to US rivals and move to the US over the next few years as Brussels snuffs the life out of them.

isam said:

Leon said:

Mexicanpete said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Ratters said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

nico67 said:

TimS said:

The BBC commentary on this deal encapsulates one of the reasons the pro-European cause has had such a poor run in recent years.

Opening sentence: “this is undoubtedly a significant deal. In a funny way, though, for Sir Keir Starmer to succeed he needs it to seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as
possible”.

I couldn’t disagree more. This has been the repeated failing of politicians on Europe. They fear the Eurosceptics and the Daily Mail, so they play down the positives and understate everything. Which means voters don’t notice or appreciate the good stuff while the silence then leaves the floor for the Mail et al to paint their own pictures. And the understatement just makes them look shifty.

Shout it from the rooftops for once. Take control of the narrative. Does Trump try to make all his new measures seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as possible? No.

The BBC seems to be turning into GB News with its negative slant . And Chris Mason is just parroting the betrayal narrative with his ridiculous question .

Yes, BBC R4 news summary at 2pm was: Starmer's done a deal with the EU. Some fishermen are unhappy. Farage and Badenoch are unhappy. Then Lord Frost featured, being scathing. That was it. Utterly unbalanced.

I'm a Leaver and abhor this craven, useless government , yet I am essentially content with this deal. It is a sensible compromise between two powers that are bound to trade freely, and benefit from doing so

On the face of it, it is not the capitulation I expected from Starmer and his team. They have won real positives in return for a surrender on fishing. Both sides stand to gain

So if they can persuade an enemy like me that this is Not Bad, even Quite Good, then they should be able to persuade Britain. This is on the Labour comms team. Can they do it?

Ultimately this will help in the real world, and a non-insignificant proportion of the public will notice before 2028/9:
- People don't like queueing at the "slow lane" at airports. Let's assume it's not ready by this summer, but people will notice in the next couple of years.
- Both parents and young people will like the youth mobility scheme.
- The food deal means we can export more to Europe again: real world benefit with little cost given our standard are already aligned
- ...fishing "sell out" keeps the status quo except our fishermen can now export back into Europe much more easily (so a net improvement even there)
- Defence and security pact important given Russia/Ukraine/Trump dynamic, and will benefit our defence companies down the line

Think back to Brexit negotiations: there was much talk of "the four freedoms are indivisible". Well, Starmer has just carved out being (essentially) part of the single market for food, fish, energy and defence, while not conceding on freedom of movement where it matters.

Clearly there's lots of detail to be ironed out, but it's a step in the right direction.

Not really, the UK has become a rule taker on food regulation which I hope a future government will reverse. It's dynamic alignment all over again which the Tories rightly refused and Labour have just given in. Useless

We have? Trump was lobbied hard to impose US rules on the UK. We did not take those rules and said no. In this new SPS deal we have the right to be consulted early about changes to food standards.

Remember that as things stands we are already aligned with the EU. Both UK and EU are committed to only raising standards so the only debate is how fast those improvements are being made.

Consulted just means ignored in reality. Didn't we also have a right to a consultation on reducing the CAP when Blair gave up a third of the rebate? Our politicians never learn.

I'm trying to get worked up about this deal.... but I can't

It's OK, fuck it, we have to follow EU rules on food so companies can have an easier time exporting there. I hate the ECJ doing anything over our heads but... pff.... it's biscuits and sausages

Also if we are going to follow any food standards I would genuinely prefer us to go the EU way than the US way. The EU way on food is one of the few areas the EU is clearly superior by a distance

I also like the egates (even tho the EU refusing to let us use them was sheer spite in the first place); the pet passports; youth mobility - let the Spanish girls come work in our bars again

I am sorry for the fisherpeople but at least their deal hasn't gotten WORSE

The deal is not gamechanging. It's more a modest but needed rapprochement after a nasty divorce, so the kids can stop being traumatised by all the acrimony and tea-pot throwing. It will do

We can set higher standards than the EU. We can't set lower standards. Max thinks this makes us the supplicant, but we were committed to keep raising food standards already before this deal.

Fishing is a political issue not a real issue. Large chunks of the fishing industry are delighted and have said so. Pelagic says its a disaster but they said the 2020 deal was a disaster - because regardless of quotas they also need to be able to trade.

The Tories say that extending their deal on fishing is surrender - so what was it when they did it? And what did they envisage when their deal expired - a better deal? With unimpeded rights to fish in Icelandic waters with no reciprocal rights in our waters? If that deal was a gimmee why didn't they negotiate it?

As you say, all in all its a better deal than we had. People are less bothered for principles like sovereignty now than they were - what they want is food on the shelves at a price they can afford.

From the perspective of a Remainer the deal is pretty much small potatoes. Other than an extension of the fishing quotas timeline (which of course was part of the magnificent "oven ready" deal) we don't seem to have given much away, but then again we don't seem to have achieved much either. Although is that likely when at the start of any negotiation we put the immigration from Europe gun to the EU's head?

Ironically these small steps are shouted down as a capitulation by the very people who capitulated in 2019.

What did you expect? Free Movement? That's never goingto happen until migration is sorted and we've worked out how to avoid shelling out benefits to foreigners. If Starmer did yield on that he would propel Reform straight into power and Labour down into the mid teens in the polls

Youth Mobility is a big win for those who want closer relations, egates and pet passports are minor but nice, the SPS stuff is genuinely good for many companies and exporters - on both sides. That trade can now resume. Small time producers able to send quality food goods here. And vice versa, we can send nice cheese there. Yay

Within the realms of political reality, this is about the best Starmer could deliver

The reality is Leave won, we have left, but if we elect PMs that fought tooth and nail to ignore the referendum result, we will have closer relations with the EU than otherwise. That’s fair enough, if Leave voters are upset they shouldn’t have allowed a party led by such a politician to win a massive majority with 9.7m votes.

The odd thing about PB today is I don’t see any Leave voters complaining much at all, despite Remainers trying to find division

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Ratters said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

nico67 said:

TimS said:

The BBC commentary on this deal encapsulates one of the reasons the pro-European cause has had such a poor run in recent years.

Opening sentence: “this is undoubtedly a significant deal. In a funny way, though, for Sir Keir Starmer to succeed he needs it to seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as
possible”.

I couldn’t disagree more. This has been the repeated failing of politicians on Europe. They fear the Eurosceptics and the Daily Mail, so they play down the positives and understate everything. Which means voters don’t notice or appreciate the good stuff while the silence then leaves the floor for the Mail et al to paint their own pictures. And the understatement just makes them look shifty.

Shout it from the rooftops for once. Take control of the narrative. Does Trump try to make all his new measures seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as possible? No.

The BBC seems to be turning into GB News with its negative slant . And Chris Mason is just parroting the betrayal narrative with his ridiculous question .

Yes, BBC R4 news summary at 2pm was: Starmer's done a deal with the EU. Some fishermen are unhappy. Farage and Badenoch are unhappy. Then Lord Frost featured, being scathing. That was it. Utterly unbalanced.

I'm a Leaver and abhor this craven, useless government , yet I am essentially content with this deal. It is a sensible compromise between two powers that are bound to trade freely, and benefit from doing so

On the face of it, it is not the capitulation I expected from Starmer and his team. They have won real positives in return for a surrender on fishing. Both sides stand to gain

So if they can persuade an enemy like me that this is Not Bad, even Quite Good, then they should be able to persuade Britain. This is on the Labour comms team. Can they do it?

Ultimately this will help in the real world, and a non-insignificant proportion of the public will notice before 2028/9:
- People don't like queueing at the "slow lane" at airports. Let's assume it's not ready by this summer, but people will notice in the next couple of years.
- Both parents and young people will like the youth mobility scheme.
- The food deal means we can export more to Europe again: real world benefit with little cost given our standard are already aligned
- ...fishing "sell out" keeps the status quo except our fishermen can now export back into Europe much more easily (so a net improvement even there)
- Defence and security pact important given Russia/Ukraine/Trump dynamic, and will benefit our defence companies down the line

Think back to Brexit negotiations: there was much talk of "the four freedoms are indivisible". Well, Starmer has just carved out being (essentially) part of the single market for food, fish, energy and defence, while not conceding on freedom of movement where it matters.

Clearly there's lots of detail to be ironed out, but it's a step in the right direction.

Not really, the UK has become a rule taker on food regulation which I hope a future government will reverse. It's dynamic alignment all over again which the Tories rightly refused and Labour have just given in. Useless

We have? Trump was lobbied hard to impose US rules on the UK. We did not take those rules and said no. In this new SPS deal we have the right to be consulted early about changes to food standards.

Remember that as things stands we are already aligned with the EU. Both UK and EU are committed to only raising standards so the only debate is how fast those improvements are being made.

Consulted just means ignored in reality. Didn't we also have a right to a consultation on reducing the CAP when Blair gave up a third of the rebate? Our politicians never learn.

There is a basic problem - we can't dictate standards to others. With so much of UK food and drink imported and exported, creating separate standards for GB and NI/EU just isn't viable. Even creating separate GB labelling has been a ballache, with UKCA an expensive woeful misstep which thankfully we dropped.

We are of course free to set higher food standards than the EU, just not lower standards. Which in essence is what you are proposing that we do.

Creating different standards 100% is viable. It may be a headache but if that's the choice we make, suck it up. No reason you can't put a sticker on something saying "not for EU" ... oh wait, they already do that, perfectly viably.

Its not a linear scale, different is not necessarily either higher or lower.

Much EU red tape is bad policy based on protecting producer interests, with no regard to the consumer. That's awful protectionism which should be axed.

Axing protectionism that is not necessary is now a "lower" standard.

You're talking in generalities and making slogans. As usual. About an industry I work in and you do not.

"Not for EU" is an expensive arse of a thing to work - ask the industry. And the practical outcome is a whole load of producers who simply stopped selling in the UK because your "sticker" is a pile of regulatory paperwork which they decided not to pay for.

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Two-tier Keir is the orange ball-chewing manacled gimp of Brussels.
https://x.com/BorisJohnson/status/1924455071791636488

Feeble effort by Boris to stay relevant.

MaxPB said:

IanB2 said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Ratters said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

nico67 said:

TimS said:

The BBC commentary on this deal encapsulates one of the reasons the pro-European cause has had such a poor run in recent years.

Opening sentence: “this is undoubtedly a significant deal. In a funny way, though, for Sir Keir Starmer to succeed he needs it to seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as
possible”.

I couldn’t disagree more. This has been the repeated failing of politicians on Europe. They fear the Eurosceptics and the Daily Mail, so they play down the positives and understate everything. Which means voters don’t notice or appreciate the good stuff while the silence then leaves the floor for the Mail et al to paint their own pictures. And the understatement just makes them look shifty.

Shout it from the rooftops for once. Take control of the narrative. Does Trump try to make all his new measures seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as possible? No.

The BBC seems to be turning into GB News with its negative slant . And Chris Mason is just parroting the betrayal narrative with his ridiculous question .

Yes, BBC R4 news summary at 2pm was: Starmer's done a deal with the EU. Some fishermen are unhappy. Farage and Badenoch are unhappy. Then Lord Frost featured, being scathing. That was it. Utterly unbalanced.

I'm a Leaver and abhor this craven, useless government , yet I am essentially content with this deal. It is a sensible compromise between two powers that are bound to trade freely, and benefit from doing so

On the face of it, it is not the capitulation I expected from Starmer and his team. They have won real positives in return for a surrender on fishing. Both sides stand to gain

So if they can persuade an enemy like me that this is Not Bad, even Quite Good, then they should be able to persuade Britain. This is on the Labour comms team. Can they do it?

Ultimately this will help in the real world, and a non-insignificant proportion of the public will notice before 2028/9:
- People don't like queueing at the "slow lane" at airports. Let's assume it's not ready by this summer, but people will notice in the next couple of years.
- Both parents and young people will like the youth mobility scheme.
- The food deal means we can export more to Europe again: real world benefit with little cost given our standard are already aligned
- ...fishing "sell out" keeps the status quo except our fishermen can now export back into Europe much more easily (so a net improvement even there)
- Defence and security pact important given Russia/Ukraine/Trump dynamic, and will benefit our defence companies down the line

Think back to Brexit negotiations: there was much talk of "the four freedoms are indivisible". Well, Starmer has just carved out being (essentially) part of the single market for food, fish, energy and defence, while not conceding on freedom of movement where it matters.

Clearly there's lots of detail to be ironed out, but it's a step in the right direction.

Not really, the UK has become a rule taker on food regulation which I hope a future government will reverse. It's dynamic alignment all over again which the Tories rightly refused and Labour have just given in. Useless

We have? Trump was lobbied hard to impose US rules on the UK. We did not take those rules and said no. In this new SPS deal we have the right to be consulted early about changes to food standards.

Remember that as things stands we are already aligned with the EU. Both UK and EU are committed to only raising standards so the only debate is how fast those improvements are being made.

Consulted just means ignored in reality. Didn't we also have a right to a consultation on reducing the CAP when Blair gave up a third of the rebate? Our politicians never learn.

I'm trying to get worked up about this deal.... but I can't

It's OK, fuck it, we have to follow EU rules on food so companies can have an easier time exporting there. I hate the ECJ doing anything over our heads but... pff.... it's biscuits and sausages

Also if we are going to follow any food standards I would genuinely prefer us to go the EU way than the US way. The EU way on food is one of the few areas the EU is clearly superior by a distance

I also like the egates (even tho the EU refusing to let us use them was sheer spite in the first place); the pet passports; youth mobility - let the Spanish girls come work in our bars again

I am sorry for the fisherpeople but at least their deal hasn't gotten WORSE

The deal is not gamechanging. It's more a modest but needed rapprochement after a nasty divorce, so the kids can stop being traumatised by all the acrimony and tea-pot throwing. It will do

Yes, I'm not particularly fussed either way, but it will mean that some gene editing and the UK's food biotech industry is now regulated from Brussels rather than from Westminster, it's an area where the UK is probably among the global leaders and the EU very much not so expect hostile regulations from Brussels to damage what is currently a small but very fast growing industry in this country. I expect what could have become a $10bn industry might just end up being strangled at birth or just end up being sold to US competitors for the IP and then once the EU catches up to where we would have been otherwise it will be too late and we'll end up having to import the IP/licences from the US.

It's probably not a deal breaker but it's a definite downside risk factor in that it doesn't necessarily kill many jobs today but it will probably prevent us from having a big food biotech industry.

Yes, that's the one area that genuinely troubles me

Indeed, and this is what I mean by being a rule taker. Dynamic alignment vs mutual standards recognition was always the debate and the government basically just waved the white flag. I think this is a short term gain for a probable long term loss overall because Brussels is a poorer regulator. Just as the government is pushing UK regulators for a growth agenda we've signed away food regulation to a known entity which is a big drag on growth. However, given that the industry is small it won't be a huge overall loss in near terms and really we'll never know what would have happened otherwise so will we miss what we never had?

The previous government had eight years to come up with some ideas as to how diverging standards might benefit us, and of course they didn’t, because the downsides would have outweighed any upside.

We diverged on AI regulations quite substantially and the UK's AI industry is larger than the EU27 combined by quite a large amount. That's hundreds of thousands of very highly paid jobs in the UK that would otherwise be in the US or somewhere in Asia and it's still our fastest growing industry and will likely become position 3 after finance and pharma in the next decade.

Gene editing and food biotech is/was the next big divergence that could drive a big new UK industry to make up for lost EU exports but alas we may never know as I suspect the innovators will sell their nascent startups to US rivals and move to the US over the next few years as Brussels snuffs the life out of them.

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

IanB2 said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Ratters said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

nico67 said:

TimS said:

The BBC commentary on this deal encapsulates one of the reasons the pro-European cause has had such a poor run in recent years.

Opening sentence: “this is undoubtedly a significant deal. In a funny way, though, for Sir Keir Starmer to succeed he needs it to seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as
possible”.

I couldn’t disagree more. This has been the repeated failing of politicians on Europe. They fear the Eurosceptics and the Daily Mail, so they play down the positives and understate everything. Which means voters don’t notice or appreciate the good stuff while the silence then leaves the floor for the Mail et al to paint their own pictures. And the understatement just makes them look shifty.

Shout it from the rooftops for once. Take control of the narrative. Does Trump try to make all his new measures seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as possible? No.

The BBC seems to be turning into GB News with its negative slant . And Chris Mason is just parroting the betrayal narrative with his ridiculous question .

Yes, BBC R4 news summary at 2pm was: Starmer's done a deal with the EU. Some fishermen are unhappy. Farage and Badenoch are unhappy. Then Lord Frost featured, being scathing. That was it. Utterly unbalanced.

I'm a Leaver and abhor this craven, useless government , yet I am essentially content with this deal. It is a sensible compromise between two powers that are bound to trade freely, and benefit from doing so

On the face of it, it is not the capitulation I expected from Starmer and his team. They have won real positives in return for a surrender on fishing. Both sides stand to gain

So if they can persuade an enemy like me that this is Not Bad, even Quite Good, then they should be able to persuade Britain. This is on the Labour comms team. Can they do it?

Ultimately this will help in the real world, and a non-insignificant proportion of the public will notice before 2028/9:
- People don't like queueing at the "slow lane" at airports. Let's assume it's not ready by this summer, but people will notice in the next couple of years.
- Both parents and young people will like the youth mobility scheme.
- The food deal means we can export more to Europe again: real world benefit with little cost given our standard are already aligned
- ...fishing "sell out" keeps the status quo except our fishermen can now export back into Europe much more easily (so a net improvement even there)
- Defence and security pact important given Russia/Ukraine/Trump dynamic, and will benefit our defence companies down the line

Think back to Brexit negotiations: there was much talk of "the four freedoms are indivisible". Well, Starmer has just carved out being (essentially) part of the single market for food, fish, energy and defence, while not conceding on freedom of movement where it matters.

Clearly there's lots of detail to be ironed out, but it's a step in the right direction.

Not really, the UK has become a rule taker on food regulation which I hope a future government will reverse. It's dynamic alignment all over again which the Tories rightly refused and Labour have just given in. Useless

We have? Trump was lobbied hard to impose US rules on the UK. We did not take those rules and said no. In this new SPS deal we have the right to be consulted early about changes to food standards.

Remember that as things stands we are already aligned with the EU. Both UK and EU are committed to only raising standards so the only debate is how fast those improvements are being made.

Consulted just means ignored in reality. Didn't we also have a right to a consultation on reducing the CAP when Blair gave up a third of the rebate? Our politicians never learn.

I'm trying to get worked up about this deal.... but I can't

It's OK, fuck it, we have to follow EU rules on food so companies can have an easier time exporting there. I hate the ECJ doing anything over our heads but... pff.... it's biscuits and sausages

Also if we are going to follow any food standards I would genuinely prefer us to go the EU way than the US way. The EU way on food is one of the few areas the EU is clearly superior by a distance

I also like the egates (even tho the EU refusing to let us use them was sheer spite in the first place); the pet passports; youth mobility - let the Spanish girls come work in our bars again

I am sorry for the fisherpeople but at least their deal hasn't gotten WORSE

The deal is not gamechanging. It's more a modest but needed rapprochement after a nasty divorce, so the kids can stop being traumatised by all the acrimony and tea-pot throwing. It will do

Yes, I'm not particularly fussed either way, but it will mean that some gene editing and the UK's food biotech industry is now regulated from Brussels rather than from Westminster, it's an area where the UK is probably among the global leaders and the EU very much not so expect hostile regulations from Brussels to damage what is currently a small but very fast growing industry in this country. I expect what could have become a $10bn industry might just end up being strangled at birth or just end up being sold to US competitors for the IP and then once the EU catches up to where we would have been otherwise it will be too late and we'll end up having to import the IP/licences from the US.

It's probably not a deal breaker but it's a definite downside risk factor in that it doesn't necessarily kill many jobs today but it will probably prevent us from having a big food biotech industry.

Yes, that's the one area that genuinely troubles me

Indeed, and this is what I mean by being a rule taker. Dynamic alignment vs mutual standards recognition was always the debate and the government basically just waved the white flag. I think this is a short term gain for a probable long term loss overall because Brussels is a poorer regulator. Just as the government is pushing UK regulators for a growth agenda we've signed away food regulation to a known entity which is a big drag on growth. However, given that the industry is small it won't be a huge overall loss in near terms and really we'll never know what would have happened otherwise so will we miss what we never had?

The previous government had eight years to come up with some ideas as to how diverging standards might benefit us, and of course they didn’t, because the downsides would have outweighed any upside.

We diverged on AI regulations quite substantially and the UK's AI industry is larger than the EU27 combined by quite a large amount. That's hundreds of thousands of very highly paid jobs in the UK that would otherwise be in the US or somewhere in Asia and it's still our fastest growing industry and will likely become position 3 after finance and pharma in the next decade.

Gene editing and food biotech is/was the next big divergence that could drive a big new UK industry to make up for lost EU exports but alas we may never know as I suspect the innovators will sell their nascent startups to US rivals and move to the US over the next few years as Brussels snuffs the life out of them.

Allie Renison of the IoD is on X claiming that EU laws are being seriously relaxed RIGHT NOW to allow European companies to do this tech wizardry, following the success in the UK

So unless they can frame those laws to hinder the UK but still allow EU tech to do it (that seems very hard) our pessimism MIGHT be misplaced

RochdalePioneers said:

IanB2 said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Ratters said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

nico67 said:

TimS said:

The BBC commentary on this deal encapsulates one of the reasons the pro-European cause has had such a poor run in recent years.

Opening sentence: “this is undoubtedly a significant deal. In a funny way, though, for Sir Keir Starmer to succeed he needs it to seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as
possible”.

I couldn’t disagree more. This has been the repeated failing of politicians on Europe. They fear the Eurosceptics and the Daily Mail, so they play down the positives and understate everything. Which means voters don’t notice or appreciate the good stuff while the silence then leaves the floor for the Mail et al to paint their own pictures. And the understatement just makes them look shifty.

Shout it from the rooftops for once. Take control of the narrative. Does Trump try to make all his new measures seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as possible? No.

The BBC seems to be turning into GB News with its negative slant . And Chris Mason is just parroting the betrayal narrative with his ridiculous question .

Yes, BBC R4 news summary at 2pm was: Starmer's done a deal with the EU. Some fishermen are unhappy. Farage and Badenoch are unhappy. Then Lord Frost featured, being scathing. That was it. Utterly unbalanced.

I'm a Leaver and abhor this craven, useless government , yet I am essentially content with this deal. It is a sensible compromise between two powers that are bound to trade freely, and benefit from doing so

On the face of it, it is not the capitulation I expected from Starmer and his team. They have won real positives in return for a surrender on fishing. Both sides stand to gain

So if they can persuade an enemy like me that this is Not Bad, even Quite Good, then they should be able to persuade Britain. This is on the Labour comms team. Can they do it?

Ultimately this will help in the real world, and a non-insignificant proportion of the public will notice before 2028/9:
- People don't like queueing at the "slow lane" at airports. Let's assume it's not ready by this summer, but people will notice in the next couple of years.
- Both parents and young people will like the youth mobility scheme.
- The food deal means we can export more to Europe again: real world benefit with little cost given our standard are already aligned
- ...fishing "sell out" keeps the status quo except our fishermen can now export back into Europe much more easily (so a net improvement even there)
- Defence and security pact important given Russia/Ukraine/Trump dynamic, and will benefit our defence companies down the line

Think back to Brexit negotiations: there was much talk of "the four freedoms are indivisible". Well, Starmer has just carved out being (essentially) part of the single market for food, fish, energy and defence, while not conceding on freedom of movement where it matters.

Clearly there's lots of detail to be ironed out, but it's a step in the right direction.

Not really, the UK has become a rule taker on food regulation which I hope a future government will reverse. It's dynamic alignment all over again which the Tories rightly refused and Labour have just given in. Useless

We have? Trump was lobbied hard to impose US rules on the UK. We did not take those rules and said no. In this new SPS deal we have the right to be consulted early about changes to food standards.

Remember that as things stands we are already aligned with the EU. Both UK and EU are committed to only raising standards so the only debate is how fast those improvements are being made.

Consulted just means ignored in reality. Didn't we also have a right to a consultation on reducing the CAP when Blair gave up a third of the rebate? Our politicians never learn.

I'm trying to get worked up about this deal.... but I can't

It's OK, fuck it, we have to follow EU rules on food so companies can have an easier time exporting there. I hate the ECJ doing anything over our heads but... pff.... it's biscuits and sausages

Also if we are going to follow any food standards I would genuinely prefer us to go the EU way than the US way. The EU way on food is one of the few areas the EU is clearly superior by a distance

I also like the egates (even tho the EU refusing to let us use them was sheer spite in the first place); the pet passports; youth mobility - let the Spanish girls come work in our bars again

I am sorry for the fisherpeople but at least their deal hasn't gotten WORSE

The deal is not gamechanging. It's more a modest but needed rapprochement after a nasty divorce, so the kids can stop being traumatised by all the acrimony and tea-pot throwing. It will do

Yes, I'm not particularly fussed either way, but it will mean that some gene editing and the UK's food biotech industry is now regulated from Brussels rather than from Westminster, it's an area where the UK is probably among the global leaders and the EU very much not so expect hostile regulations from Brussels to damage what is currently a small but very fast growing industry in this country. I expect what could have become a $10bn industry might just end up being strangled at birth or just end up being sold to US competitors for the IP and then once the EU catches up to where we would have been otherwise it will be too late and we'll end up having to import the IP/licences from the US.

It's probably not a deal breaker but it's a definite downside risk factor in that it doesn't necessarily kill many jobs today but it will probably prevent us from having a big food biotech industry.

Yes, that's the one area that genuinely troubles me

Indeed, and this is what I mean by being a rule taker. Dynamic alignment vs mutual standards recognition was always the debate and the government basically just waved the white flag. I think this is a short term gain for a probable long term loss overall because Brussels is a poorer regulator. Just as the government is pushing UK regulators for a growth agenda we've signed away food regulation to a known entity which is a big drag on growth. However, given that the industry is small it won't be a huge overall loss in near terms and really we'll never know what would have happened otherwise so will we miss what we never had?

The previous government had eight years to come up with some ideas as to how diverging standards might benefit us, and of course they didn’t, because the downsides would have outweighed any upside.

Theoretically the EU could be lobbied by the French to impose some new standard which benefits their farmers and costs ours. The reason they couldn't come up with a practical example is because there aren't any.

Even now, Max is talking about biotech in the future. Meanwhile, to guard against these theoretical future events, we erected big trade barriers to make it expensive at best and commercially non-viable at worst for our producers today. To ensure that our identical to the EU standards are kept separate from their identical to the UK standards.

Nigelb said:

I really hope that Europe is getting ready for the US to abandon Ukraine.
Because they've been strongly signalling that for quite some time now.

https://x.com/shaunwalker7/status/1924457691134431396
“If you don’t engage in good faith we’ll have to abandon our support for your adversary” is quite a negotiating position.

Stuartinromford said:

Taz said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Two-tier Keir is the orange ball-chewing manacled gimp of Brussels.
https://x.com/BorisJohnson/status/1924455071791636488

Feeble effort by Boris to stay relevant.

Even by his own standards it’s pretty weak.

He's not as young as he used to be.

I assumed that the orange-ball thing was a reference to the Stephen Milligan story from the mid-90s. Boris's happy place as a brick-chucking journalist.

Though whether it's ever prudent for a Conservative politician to make sex scandal references is another matter.

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Ratters said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

nico67 said:

TimS said:

The BBC commentary on this deal encapsulates one of the reasons the pro-European cause has had such a poor run in recent years.

Opening sentence: “this is undoubtedly a significant deal. In a funny way, though, for Sir Keir Starmer to succeed he needs it to seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as
possible”.

I couldn’t disagree more. This has been the repeated failing of politicians on Europe. They fear the Eurosceptics and the Daily Mail, so they play down the positives and understate everything. Which means voters don’t notice or appreciate the good stuff while the silence then leaves the floor for the Mail et al to paint their own pictures. And the understatement just makes them look shifty.

Shout it from the rooftops for once. Take control of the narrative. Does Trump try to make all his new measures seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as possible? No.

The BBC seems to be turning into GB News with its negative slant . And Chris Mason is just parroting the betrayal narrative with his ridiculous question .

Yes, BBC R4 news summary at 2pm was: Starmer's done a deal with the EU. Some fishermen are unhappy. Farage and Badenoch are unhappy. Then Lord Frost featured, being scathing. That was it. Utterly unbalanced.

I'm a Leaver and abhor this craven, useless government , yet I am essentially content with this deal. It is a sensible compromise between two powers that are bound to trade freely, and benefit from doing so

On the face of it, it is not the capitulation I expected from Starmer and his team. They have won real positives in return for a surrender on fishing. Both sides stand to gain

So if they can persuade an enemy like me that this is Not Bad, even Quite Good, then they should be able to persuade Britain. This is on the Labour comms team. Can they do it?

Ultimately this will help in the real world, and a non-insignificant proportion of the public will notice before 2028/9:
- People don't like queueing at the "slow lane" at airports. Let's assume it's not ready by this summer, but people will notice in the next couple of years.
- Both parents and young people will like the youth mobility scheme.
- The food deal means we can export more to Europe again: real world benefit with little cost given our standard are already aligned
- ...fishing "sell out" keeps the status quo except our fishermen can now export back into Europe much more easily (so a net improvement even there)
- Defence and security pact important given Russia/Ukraine/Trump dynamic, and will benefit our defence companies down the line

Think back to Brexit negotiations: there was much talk of "the four freedoms are indivisible". Well, Starmer has just carved out being (essentially) part of the single market for food, fish, energy and defence, while not conceding on freedom of movement where it matters.

Clearly there's lots of detail to be ironed out, but it's a step in the right direction.

Not really, the UK has become a rule taker on food regulation which I hope a future government will reverse. It's dynamic alignment all over again which the Tories rightly refused and Labour have just given in. Useless

We have? Trump was lobbied hard to impose US rules on the UK. We did not take those rules and said no. In this new SPS deal we have the right to be consulted early about changes to food standards.

Remember that as things stands we are already aligned with the EU. Both UK and EU are committed to only raising standards so the only debate is how fast those improvements are being made.

Consulted just means ignored in reality. Didn't we also have a right to a consultation on reducing the CAP when Blair gave up a third of the rebate? Our politicians never learn.

There is a basic problem - we can't dictate standards to others. With so much of UK food and drink imported and exported, creating separate standards for GB and NI/EU just isn't viable. Even creating separate GB labelling has been a ballache, with UKCA an expensive woeful misstep which thankfully we dropped.

We are of course free to set higher food standards than the EU, just not lower standards. Which in essence is what you are proposing that we do.

Creating different standards 100% is viable. It may be a headache but if that's the choice we make, suck it up. No reason you can't put a sticker on something saying "not for EU" ... oh wait, they already do that, perfectly viably.

Its not a linear scale, different is not necessarily either higher or lower.

Much EU red tape is bad policy based on protecting producer interests, with no regard to the consumer. That's awful protectionism which should be axed.

Axing protectionism that is not necessary is now a "lower" standard.

You're talking in generalities and making slogans. As usual. About an industry I work in and you do not.

"Not for EU" is an expensive arse of a thing to work - ask the industry. And the practical outcome is a whole load of producers who simply stopped selling in the UK because your "sticker" is a pile of regulatory paperwork which they decided not to pay for.

Tough shit if it's an expensive arse, it's a perfectly viable expensive arse.

You can argue its not worth it. Others like MaxPB have provided excellent arguments why it is worth it. Thats a debate worth having.

Saying it's not viable? That's just a lie. It's viable, the fact you dislike it or find it expensive or an arse doesn't make it unviable.

TimS said:

RochdalePioneers said:

IanB2 said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Ratters said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

nico67 said:

TimS said:

The BBC commentary on this deal encapsulates one of the reasons the pro-European cause has had such a poor run in recent years.

Opening sentence: “this is undoubtedly a significant deal. In a funny way, though, for Sir Keir Starmer to succeed he needs it to seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as
possible”.

I couldn’t disagree more. This has been the repeated failing of politicians on Europe. They fear the Eurosceptics and the Daily Mail, so they play down the positives and understate everything. Which means voters don’t notice or appreciate the good stuff while the silence then leaves the floor for the Mail et al to paint their own pictures. And the understatement just makes them look shifty.

Shout it from the rooftops for once. Take control of the narrative. Does Trump try to make all his new measures seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as possible? No.

The BBC seems to be turning into GB News with its negative slant . And Chris Mason is just parroting the betrayal narrative with his ridiculous question .

Yes, BBC R4 news summary at 2pm was: Starmer's done a deal with the EU. Some fishermen are unhappy. Farage and Badenoch are unhappy. Then Lord Frost featured, being scathing. That was it. Utterly unbalanced.

I'm a Leaver and abhor this craven, useless government , yet I am essentially content with this deal. It is a sensible compromise between two powers that are bound to trade freely, and benefit from doing so

On the face of it, it is not the capitulation I expected from Starmer and his team. They have won real positives in return for a surrender on fishing. Both sides stand to gain

So if they can persuade an enemy like me that this is Not Bad, even Quite Good, then they should be able to persuade Britain. This is on the Labour comms team. Can they do it?

Ultimately this will help in the real world, and a non-insignificant proportion of the public will notice before 2028/9:
- People don't like queueing at the "slow lane" at airports. Let's assume it's not ready by this summer, but people will notice in the next couple of years.
- Both parents and young people will like the youth mobility scheme.
- The food deal means we can export more to Europe again: real world benefit with little cost given our standard are already aligned
- ...fishing "sell out" keeps the status quo except our fishermen can now export back into Europe much more easily (so a net improvement even there)
- Defence and security pact important given Russia/Ukraine/Trump dynamic, and will benefit our defence companies down the line

Think back to Brexit negotiations: there was much talk of "the four freedoms are indivisible". Well, Starmer has just carved out being (essentially) part of the single market for food, fish, energy and defence, while not conceding on freedom of movement where it matters.

Clearly there's lots of detail to be ironed out, but it's a step in the right direction.

Not really, the UK has become a rule taker on food regulation which I hope a future government will reverse. It's dynamic alignment all over again which the Tories rightly refused and Labour have just given in. Useless

We have? Trump was lobbied hard to impose US rules on the UK. We did not take those rules and said no. In this new SPS deal we have the right to be consulted early about changes to food standards.

Remember that as things stands we are already aligned with the EU. Both UK and EU are committed to only raising standards so the only debate is how fast those improvements are being made.

Consulted just means ignored in reality. Didn't we also have a right to a consultation on reducing the CAP when Blair gave up a third of the rebate? Our politicians never learn.

I'm trying to get worked up about this deal.... but I can't

It's OK, fuck it, we have to follow EU rules on food so companies can have an easier time exporting there. I hate the ECJ doing anything over our heads but... pff.... it's biscuits and sausages

Also if we are going to follow any food standards I would genuinely prefer us to go the EU way than the US way. The EU way on food is one of the few areas the EU is clearly superior by a distance

I also like the egates (even tho the EU refusing to let us use them was sheer spite in the first place); the pet passports; youth mobility - let the Spanish girls come work in our bars again

I am sorry for the fisherpeople but at least their deal hasn't gotten WORSE

The deal is not gamechanging. It's more a modest but needed rapprochement after a nasty divorce, so the kids can stop being traumatised by all the acrimony and tea-pot throwing. It will do

Yes, I'm not particularly fussed either way, but it will mean that some gene editing and the UK's food biotech industry is now regulated from Brussels rather than from Westminster, it's an area where the UK is probably among the global leaders and the EU very much not so expect hostile regulations from Brussels to damage what is currently a small but very fast growing industry in this country. I expect what could have become a $10bn industry might just end up being strangled at birth or just end up being sold to US competitors for the IP and then once the EU catches up to where we would have been otherwise it will be too late and we'll end up having to import the IP/licences from the US.

It's probably not a deal breaker but it's a definite downside risk factor in that it doesn't necessarily kill many jobs today but it will probably prevent us from having a big food biotech industry.

Yes, that's the one area that genuinely troubles me

Indeed, and this is what I mean by being a rule taker. Dynamic alignment vs mutual standards recognition was always the debate and the government basically just waved the white flag. I think this is a short term gain for a probable long term loss overall because Brussels is a poorer regulator. Just as the government is pushing UK regulators for a growth agenda we've signed away food regulation to a known entity which is a big drag on growth. However, given that the industry is small it won't be a huge overall loss in near terms and really we'll never know what would have happened otherwise so will we miss what we never had?

The previous government had eight years to come up with some ideas as to how diverging standards might benefit us, and of course they didn’t, because the downsides would have outweighed any upside.

Theoretically the EU could be lobbied by the French to impose some new standard which benefits their farmers and costs ours. The reason they couldn't come up with a practical example is because there aren't any.

Even now, Max is talking about biotech in the future. Meanwhile, to guard against these theoretical future events, we erected big trade barriers to make it expensive at best and commercially non-viable at worst for our producers today. To ensure that our identical to the EU standards are kept separate from their identical to the UK standards.

Biotech - or more specifically agricultural biotech - is a big blind spot for the EU and largely the result of old-school German greens having sway.

I think things will change there in due course. To take one example: vine diseases. We have vitis vinifera, the old classic varieties, all massively vulnerable to mildew infection and needing to be sprayed to within an inch of their lives with copper and various other nasties. Then we have resistant hybrids (or PiWis as they’re now known) with mixed reputations and limited, though growing, markets.

What we’re not allowed is gene-edited vinifera. Mildew-resistant Pinot Noir, say. Yet it would be environmentally a no brainer.

TheScreamingEagles said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Stuartinromford said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Two-tier Keir is the orange ball-chewing manacled gimp of Brussels.
https://x.com/BorisJohnson/status/1924455071791636488

Strong "ageing rock star doing one final comeback tour too many" vibes.

Trying hard (probably too hard), but the natural rhythm has gone.

tbh I do not even understand Boris's reference; clearly I have led a sheltered life. And Kemi seems equally mystified:-

Asked about Mr Johnson’s remarks, Kemi Badenoch told journalists: “Boris Johnson is Boris Johnson”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/05/19/politics-latest-news-brexit-starmer-uk-eu-summit/ (£££)

Sir Keir is gimp to the dominatrix that is the EU.

Oddly Boris Johnson forgets he was pegged senseless by the EU by putting a border in the Irish Sea, something Boris Johnson said no UK PM could ever do.

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Ratters said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

nico67 said:

TimS said:

The BBC commentary on this deal encapsulates one of the reasons the pro-European cause has had such a poor run in recent years.

Opening sentence: “this is undoubtedly a significant deal. In a funny way, though, for Sir Keir Starmer to succeed he needs it to seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as
possible”.

I couldn’t disagree more. This has been the repeated failing of politicians on Europe. They fear the Eurosceptics and the Daily Mail, so they play down the positives and understate everything. Which means voters don’t notice or appreciate the good stuff while the silence then leaves the floor for the Mail et al to paint their own pictures. And the understatement just makes them look shifty.

Shout it from the rooftops for once. Take control of the narrative. Does Trump try to make all his new measures seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as possible? No.

The BBC seems to be turning into GB News with its negative slant . And Chris Mason is just parroting the betrayal narrative with his ridiculous question .

Yes, BBC R4 news summary at 2pm was: Starmer's done a deal with the EU. Some fishermen are unhappy. Farage and Badenoch are unhappy. Then Lord Frost featured, being scathing. That was it. Utterly unbalanced.

I'm a Leaver and abhor this craven, useless government , yet I am essentially content with this deal. It is a sensible compromise between two powers that are bound to trade freely, and benefit from doing so

On the face of it, it is not the capitulation I expected from Starmer and his team. They have won real positives in return for a surrender on fishing. Both sides stand to gain

So if they can persuade an enemy like me that this is Not Bad, even Quite Good, then they should be able to persuade Britain. This is on the Labour comms team. Can they do it?

Ultimately this will help in the real world, and a non-insignificant proportion of the public will notice before 2028/9:
- People don't like queueing at the "slow lane" at airports. Let's assume it's not ready by this summer, but people will notice in the next couple of years.
- Both parents and young people will like the youth mobility scheme.
- The food deal means we can export more to Europe again: real world benefit with little cost given our standard are already aligned
- ...fishing "sell out" keeps the status quo except our fishermen can now export back into Europe much more easily (so a net improvement even there)
- Defence and security pact important given Russia/Ukraine/Trump dynamic, and will benefit our defence companies down the line

Think back to Brexit negotiations: there was much talk of "the four freedoms are indivisible". Well, Starmer has just carved out being (essentially) part of the single market for food, fish, energy and defence, while not conceding on freedom of movement where it matters.

Clearly there's lots of detail to be ironed out, but it's a step in the right direction.

Not really, the UK has become a rule taker on food regulation which I hope a future government will reverse. It's dynamic alignment all over again which the Tories rightly refused and Labour have just given in. Useless

We have? Trump was lobbied hard to impose US rules on the UK. We did not take those rules and said no. In this new SPS deal we have the right to be consulted early about changes to food standards.

Remember that as things stands we are already aligned with the EU. Both UK and EU are committed to only raising standards so the only debate is how fast those improvements are being made.

Consulted just means ignored in reality. Didn't we also have a right to a consultation on reducing the CAP when Blair gave up a third of the rebate? Our politicians never learn.

There is a basic problem - we can't dictate standards to others. With so much of UK food and drink imported and exported, creating separate standards for GB and NI/EU just isn't viable. Even creating separate GB labelling has been a ballache, with UKCA an expensive woeful misstep which thankfully we dropped.

We are of course free to set higher food standards than the EU, just not lower standards. Which in essence is what you are proposing that we do.

Creating different standards 100% is viable. It may be a headache but if that's the choice we make, suck it up. No reason you can't put a sticker on something saying "not for EU" ... oh wait, they already do that, perfectly viably.

Its not a linear scale, different is not necessarily either higher or lower.

Much EU red tape is bad policy based on protecting producer interests, with no regard to the consumer. That's awful protectionism which should be axed.

Axing protectionism that is not necessary is now a "lower" standard.

You're talking in generalities and making slogans. As usual. About an industry I work in and you do not.

"Not for EU" is an expensive arse of a thing to work - ask the industry. And the practical outcome is a whole load of producers who simply stopped selling in the UK because your "sticker" is a pile of regulatory paperwork which they decided not to pay for.

Tough shit if it's an expensive arse, it's a perfectly viable expensive arse.

You can argue its not worth it. Others like MaxPB have provided excellent arguments why it is worth it. Thats a debate worth having.

Saying it's not viable? That's just a lie. It's viable, the fact you dislike it or find it expensive or an arse doesn't make it unviable.

lol - tough shit?

Your proposal to add a stack of cost onto food because ideology means the following:
1. Consumers pay more for the same thing. "Tough shit"
2. Consumers find there is less product choice. "Tough shit"
3. Consumers find availability gaps because although there's stock in the warehouse, its export only. "Tough shit"

Can we do it - and have higher costs and less choice? Sure. But in the real world we're not doing it because it makes sense only to ideologues like your good self who don't have a clue how things work.

I await the Tories to go out and make the case for why the deal should be scrapped and food should be scarcer and more expensive. Will be fun to watch.

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

IanB2 said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Ratters said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

nico67 said:

TimS said:

The BBC commentary on this deal encapsulates one of the reasons the pro-European cause has had such a poor run in recent years.

Opening sentence: “this is undoubtedly a significant deal. In a funny way, though, for Sir Keir Starmer to succeed he needs it to seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as
possible”.

I couldn’t disagree more. This has been the repeated failing of politicians on Europe. They fear the Eurosceptics and the Daily Mail, so they play down the positives and understate everything. Which means voters don’t notice or appreciate the good stuff while the silence then leaves the floor for the Mail et al to paint their own pictures. And the understatement just makes them look shifty.

Shout it from the rooftops for once. Take control of the narrative. Does Trump try to make all his new measures seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as possible? No.

The BBC seems to be turning into GB News with its negative slant . And Chris Mason is just parroting the betrayal narrative with his ridiculous question .

Yes, BBC R4 news summary at 2pm was: Starmer's done a deal with the EU. Some fishermen are unhappy. Farage and Badenoch are unhappy. Then Lord Frost featured, being scathing. That was it. Utterly unbalanced.

I'm a Leaver and abhor this craven, useless government , yet I am essentially content with this deal. It is a sensible compromise between two powers that are bound to trade freely, and benefit from doing so

On the face of it, it is not the capitulation I expected from Starmer and his team. They have won real positives in return for a surrender on fishing. Both sides stand to gain

So if they can persuade an enemy like me that this is Not Bad, even Quite Good, then they should be able to persuade Britain. This is on the Labour comms team. Can they do it?

Ultimately this will help in the real world, and a non-insignificant proportion of the public will notice before 2028/9:
- People don't like queueing at the "slow lane" at airports. Let's assume it's not ready by this summer, but people will notice in the next couple of years.
- Both parents and young people will like the youth mobility scheme.
- The food deal means we can export more to Europe again: real world benefit with little cost given our standard are already aligned
- ...fishing "sell out" keeps the status quo except our fishermen can now export back into Europe much more easily (so a net improvement even there)
- Defence and security pact important given Russia/Ukraine/Trump dynamic, and will benefit our defence companies down the line

Think back to Brexit negotiations: there was much talk of "the four freedoms are indivisible". Well, Starmer has just carved out being (essentially) part of the single market for food, fish, energy and defence, while not conceding on freedom of movement where it matters.

Clearly there's lots of detail to be ironed out, but it's a step in the right direction.

Not really, the UK has become a rule taker on food regulation which I hope a future government will reverse. It's dynamic alignment all over again which the Tories rightly refused and Labour have just given in. Useless

We have? Trump was lobbied hard to impose US rules on the UK. We did not take those rules and said no. In this new SPS deal we have the right to be consulted early about changes to food standards.

Remember that as things stands we are already aligned with the EU. Both UK and EU are committed to only raising standards so the only debate is how fast those improvements are being made.

Consulted just means ignored in reality. Didn't we also have a right to a consultation on reducing the CAP when Blair gave up a third of the rebate? Our politicians never learn.

I'm trying to get worked up about this deal.... but I can't

It's OK, fuck it, we have to follow EU rules on food so companies can have an easier time exporting there. I hate the ECJ doing anything over our heads but... pff.... it's biscuits and sausages

Also if we are going to follow any food standards I would genuinely prefer us to go the EU way than the US way. The EU way on food is one of the few areas the EU is clearly superior by a distance

I also like the egates (even tho the EU refusing to let us use them was sheer spite in the first place); the pet passports; youth mobility - let the Spanish girls come work in our bars again

I am sorry for the fisherpeople but at least their deal hasn't gotten WORSE

The deal is not gamechanging. It's more a modest but needed rapprochement after a nasty divorce, so the kids can stop being traumatised by all the acrimony and tea-pot throwing. It will do

Yes, I'm not particularly fussed either way, but it will mean that some gene editing and the UK's food biotech industry is now regulated from Brussels rather than from Westminster, it's an area where the UK is probably among the global leaders and the EU very much not so expect hostile regulations from Brussels to damage what is currently a small but very fast growing industry in this country. I expect what could have become a $10bn industry might just end up being strangled at birth or just end up being sold to US competitors for the IP and then once the EU catches up to where we would have been otherwise it will be too late and we'll end up having to import the IP/licences from the US.

It's probably not a deal breaker but it's a definite downside risk factor in that it doesn't necessarily kill many jobs today but it will probably prevent us from having a big food biotech industry.

Yes, that's the one area that genuinely troubles me

Indeed, and this is what I mean by being a rule taker. Dynamic alignment vs mutual standards recognition was always the debate and the government basically just waved the white flag. I think this is a short term gain for a probable long term loss overall because Brussels is a poorer regulator. Just as the government is pushing UK regulators for a growth agenda we've signed away food regulation to a known entity which is a big drag on growth. However, given that the industry is small it won't be a huge overall loss in near terms and really we'll never know what would have happened otherwise so will we miss what we never had?

The previous government had eight years to come up with some ideas as to how diverging standards might benefit us, and of course they didn’t, because the downsides would have outweighed any upside.

We diverged on AI regulations quite substantially and the UK's AI industry is larger than the EU27 combined by quite a large amount. That's hundreds of thousands of very highly paid jobs in the UK that would otherwise be in the US or somewhere in Asia and it's still our fastest growing industry and will likely become position 3 after finance and pharma in the next decade.

Gene editing and food biotech is/was the next big divergence that could drive a big new UK industry to make up for lost EU exports but alas we may never know as I suspect the innovators will sell their nascent startups to US rivals and move to the US over the next few years as Brussels snuffs the life out of them.

Allie Renison of the IoD is on X claiming that EU laws are being seriously relaxed RIGHT NOW to allow European companies to do this tech wizardry, following the success in the UK

So unless they can frame those laws to hinder the UK but still allow EU tech to do it (that seems very hard) our pessimism MIGHT be misplaced

The EC may look to relax the current tough regulations on it, yet it will be the know nothing MEPs that protect "traditional farming" and vote it down. A potential huge future industry for the UK may end up being thrown away by Hungarian or Belgian MEPs representing areas just as they made trouble for trade deals in the past. It's not an industry that they have or could realistically attract so blocking it off literally makes no difference to them. All of the onerous AI regulations came from the EU parliament rather than the commission too, again it's MEPs from countries who don't have serious AI industries or ambition voting to block something they'll never benefit from anyway.

What I am very glad to see is that the government has refused to trade away tech and financial regulations. I think we could have wiped 4-7% off GDP growth in the next 10 years if they had while the EU catches up to the rest of the world.

One thing that does give me modest hope is that Starmer's government do seem aware of British advantages and opportunities in tech areas. It's not just talk they genuinely seem to get it (or so I forlornly believe)

It's not surprising that they get it - as it offers one of the very few avenues for Britain to escape its low productivity, need-migration nightmare of stagnancy and social angst. Also it could save the NHS

TheScreamingEagles said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Stuartinromford said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Two-tier Keir is the orange ball-chewing manacled gimp of Brussels.
https://x.com/BorisJohnson/status/1924455071791636488

Strong "ageing rock star doing one final comeback tour too many" vibes.

Trying hard (probably too hard), but the natural rhythm has gone.

tbh I do not even understand Boris's reference; clearly I have led a sheltered life. And Kemi seems equally mystified:-

Asked about Mr Johnson’s remarks, Kemi Badenoch told journalists: “Boris Johnson is Boris Johnson”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/05/19/politics-latest-news-brexit-starmer-uk-eu-summit/ (£££)

Sir Keir is gimp to the dominatrix that is the EU.

Oddly Boris Johnson forgets he was pegged senseless by the EU by putting a border in the Irish Sea, something Boris Johnson said no UK PM could ever do.

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

IanB2 said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Ratters said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

nico67 said:

TimS said:

The BBC commentary on this deal encapsulates one of the reasons the pro-European cause has had such a poor run in recent years.

Opening sentence: “this is undoubtedly a significant deal. In a funny way, though, for Sir Keir Starmer to succeed he needs it to seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as
possible”.

I couldn’t disagree more. This has been the repeated failing of politicians on Europe. They fear the Eurosceptics and the Daily Mail, so they play down the positives and understate everything. Which means voters don’t notice or appreciate the good stuff while the silence then leaves the floor for the Mail et al to paint their own pictures. And the understatement just makes them look shifty.

Shout it from the rooftops for once. Take control of the narrative. Does Trump try to make all his new measures seem as insignificant and uncontroversial as possible? No.

The BBC seems to be turning into GB News with its negative slant . And Chris Mason is just parroting the betrayal narrative with his ridiculous question .

Yes, BBC R4 news summary at 2pm was: Starmer's done a deal with the EU. Some fishermen are unhappy. Farage and Badenoch are unhappy. Then Lord Frost featured, being scathing. That was it. Utterly unbalanced.

I'm a Leaver and abhor this craven, useless government , yet I am essentially content with this deal. It is a sensible compromise between two powers that are bound to trade freely, and benefit from doing so

On the face of it, it is not the capitulation I expected from Starmer and his team. They have won real positives in return for a surrender on fishing. Both sides stand to gain

So if they can persuade an enemy like me that this is Not Bad, even Quite Good, then they should be able to persuade Britain. This is on the Labour comms team. Can they do it?

Ultimately this will help in the real world, and a non-insignificant proportion of the public will notice before 2028/9:
- People don't like queueing at the "slow lane" at airports. Let's assume it's not ready by this summer, but people will notice in the next couple of years.
- Both parents and young people will like the youth mobility scheme.
- The food deal means we can export more to Europe again: real world benefit with little cost given our standard are already aligned
- ...fishing "sell out" keeps the status quo except our fishermen can now export back into Europe much more easily (so a net improvement even there)
- Defence and security pact important given Russia/Ukraine/Trump dynamic, and will benefit our defence companies down the line

Think back to Brexit negotiations: there was much talk of "the four freedoms are indivisible". Well, Starmer has just carved out being (essentially) part of the single market for food, fish, energy and defence, while not conceding on freedom of movement where it matters.

Clearly there's lots of detail to be ironed out, but it's a step in the right direction.

Not really, the UK has become a rule taker on food regulation which I hope a future government will reverse. It's dynamic alignment all over again which the Tories rightly refused and Labour have just given in. Useless

We have? Trump was lobbied hard to impose US rules on the UK. We did not take those rules and said no. In this new SPS deal we have the right to be consulted early about changes to food standards.

Remember that as things stands we are already aligned with the EU. Both UK and EU are committed to only raising standards so the only debate is how fast those improvements are being made.

Consulted just means ignored in reality. Didn't we also have a right to a consultation on reducing the CAP when Blair gave up a third of the rebate? Our politicians never learn.

I'm trying to get worked up about this deal.... but I can't

It's OK, fuck it, we have to follow EU rules on food so companies can have an easier time exporting there. I hate the ECJ doing anything over our heads but... pff.... it's biscuits and sausages

Also if we are going to follow any food standards I would genuinely prefer us to go the EU way than the US way. The EU way on food is one of the few areas the EU is clearly superior by a distance

I also like the egates (even tho the EU refusing to let us use them was sheer spite in the first place); the pet passports; youth mobility - let the Spanish girls come work in our bars again

I am sorry for the fisherpeople but at least their deal hasn't gotten WORSE

The deal is not gamechanging. It's more a modest but needed rapprochement after a nasty divorce, so the kids can stop being traumatised by all the acrimony and tea-pot throwing. It will do

Yes, I'm not particularly fussed either way, but it will mean that some gene editing and the UK's food biotech industry is now regulated from Brussels rather than from Westminster, it's an area where the UK is probably among the global leaders and the EU very much not so expect hostile regulations from Brussels to damage what is currently a small but very fast growing industry in this country. I expect what could have become a $10bn industry might just end up being strangled at birth or just end up being sold to US competitors for the IP and then once the EU catches up to where we would have been otherwise it will be too late and we'll end up having to import the IP/licences from the US.

It's probably not a deal breaker but it's a definite downside risk factor in that it doesn't necessarily kill many jobs today but it will probably prevent us from having a big food biotech industry.

Yes, that's the one area that genuinely troubles me

Indeed, and this is what I mean by being a rule taker. Dynamic alignment vs mutual standards recognition was always the debate and the government basically just waved the white flag. I think this is a short term gain for a probable long term loss overall because Brussels is a poorer regulator. Just as the government is pushing UK regulators for a growth agenda we've signed away food regulation to a known entity which is a big drag on growth. However, given that the industry is small it won't be a huge overall loss in near terms and really we'll never know what would have happened otherwise so will we miss what we never had?

The previous government had eight years to come up with some ideas as to how diverging standards might benefit us, and of course they didn’t, because the downsides would have outweighed any upside.

Theoretically the EU could be lobbied by the French to impose some new standard which benefits their farmers and costs ours. The reason they couldn't come up with a practical example is because there aren't any.

Even now, Max is talking about biotech in the future. Meanwhile, to guard against these theoretical future events, we erected big trade barriers to make it expensive at best and commercially non-viable at worst for our producers today. To ensure that our identical to the EU standards are kept separate from their identical to the UK standards.

But we have a concrete example of where we've leveraged regulatory divergence from the EU to our advantage on AI. As I said, I'm not particularly fussed by this deal and I think it will probably help in the very short term but you're pretending it has no downside risk which is patently false. If EU regulations on gene editing and wider food biotech doesn't change a nascent UK industry will be sold off to the US and all of the IP and jobs will be transferred. Maybe that's a sacrifice worth paying for ease of exports for traditional companies, but it is still a downside risk and pretending it isn't does you no favours.

That has got the potential to be an advantage in the future in a world where the EU industry is too lazy to bother. I accept that. But the alternative - as you proposed - is that to protect that possible future we should continue to pay more for less now by maintaining the SPS border between GB and EU where the standards are practically identical.

I don't think the upside is as big as you do though. IMO we're trading a potential blockbuster industry for the UK for an extra £3-4bn worth if low margin exports to the EU. It doesn't feel like a good trade to me today, though I'm open to being proved wrong.