Are we being fooled? Does our food have high levels of Mercury and Arsenic substance that the EU Condones

Be careful Mr Tusk. The Spinx like Daimajin will rise up to protect the 17.4M. Who are you to take their European citizenship away? Just because you and your cohorts have hijacked the future for millions across Europe it does not make the 17.4 Million in the UK any less European, our rights are inalienable.

Your persona is strange, a devout fighter of the Soviet doctrine yet you emerge in Europe intent on creating a Soviet Empire. Mr Tusk turn your attentions to your own continent under your watch we are seeing oppression in Catalonia and a brutal crushing of the Mouvement des gilets jaunes. The brutal pictures that we are seeing you could be forgiven for believing they are from the days of Soviet invasions, perhaps the streets of Prague in the 60s. To use your words; “often the ones beaten are in the right”. Hell belongs your domain Mr Tusk. You are a classic example of a person who leaves their country to escape their culture who then tries to set up that same culture you've escaped in your adopted country.

I will turn my attention today to the banking sector, for here we are full of, I guess a form of Sophism logic. I do not ever recall a head of state or a British Prime Minister refer to the banking sector as the enemy. Francois Hollande did just that, yet he espouses vitriol towards the British people showing his and Macron's desire to punish us with his attempts to pull the banking sector from London in order to harm the Great British people. Fooled we are not!

For many years the EU have been meddling in the affairs of the city, not least by Monsieur Barnier, as notes of meetings with Lord King will attest to. The EU have tried hard to influence, even control the affairs of the city. Since 2008 this campaign has intensified with regulation flowing from Brussels due to the Western Financial crisis (The west refer to this as the global financial crisis for me this is a misnomer as the Asia region marched on regardless).  REFER TO MY NOTE HERE.

In particular, four measures are likely to have a large impact on the City: restrictions on the over-the-counter derivatives market; the EU’s implementation of the so-called Basel 3 agreement, which imposes tougher requirements for capital and liquidity; caps on bankers’ bonuses; and the proposed financial transactions (Tobin) tax. The Tobin Tax named after James Tobin a Nobel prize winner for economics in 1972. It was his hope after the end of exchange rate controls (the Bretton Woods agreement in 1971) to throw sand in the wheels of currency speculation.  Again this tax gains momentum championed by France through the corridors of the EU. Ironically, both taxes will do little to quell the city appetite as they will just relocate to New York, Dubai, Hong Kong or Singapore. A loss for the whole of Europe!

Briefly I'll turn to remainers. I've noticed, for some time how remainers always espouse the term I. One comment l received yesterday, where a business owner raged about WTO paperwork, the complexity of it, although he admitted he'd only completed the paperwork once as his business is Europe. A business he owns that deals with Europe smoothly.  He also said if WTO was so easy why do countries push for Free Trade Agreements. 

I have written here to alert, to open discussion on the opportunity of the 21C, this is Asia's century.  But again the hostility I've received to the notion of flying over Europe to chase far off dreams seem to some, well mind boggling. There is a lot of substance here to cover, I will try to deal with this as I write below although some of the excuses appear shallow.  

• First we are a community, we are not I or my business, we have a duty of care for each other. Perhaps if we did it will result in fewer employees knocking back anti depressants. 
• Remainers seem to think that all trade with the EU will end March 30th, where does this come from? 
• As for Free trade Agreements I think India have tried to negotiate with EU for eight years, and they, if they haven't already given up. 
• WTO, it seems there is a belief that our options will always be; remain in the EU or be locked to WTO in perpetuity, again why? Will the EU not want to trade with their biggest market, admittedly when sanity prevails they I'm sure, will want a free trade agreement with the UK. After all a trade surplus exists. 
• My final point; the excuse that Asia is too far I think is quite pathetic, one person used the argument that we must reduce our carbon footprint. Whilst I agree and I do hope they embrace electric cars. I do find such an attitude laudable as we not only holiday in Asia or Jamaica, St Lucia but we tuck into North Sea prawns with our surf and turf. Prawns that have been flown to Thailand, Vietnam to be shelled.

Shell Fish Pollution

On the subject of Prawns, I recently had dinner with a scientist from the EU. He alerted me of the risk that North Sea shell fish are travelling from rich waters  off the UK to be shelled in Asia.  They are being substituted by shell fish caught in waters in Asia with high mercury and arsenic content. I later asked Andrew Wilson from EU food sector this very question, he attempted to dismiss this notion as stupidity, as he does the views of Brexit leavers but he later guardedly admitted that yes it is a concern.

For today I will leave this blog here, thank you for reading.

Be careful Mr Tusk. The Spinx like Daimajin will rise up to protect the 17.4M. Who are you to take their European citizenship away? Just because you and your cohorts have hijacked the future for millions across Europe it does not make the 17.4 Million in the UK any less European, our rights are inalienable.

Your persona is strange, a devout fighter of the Soviet doctrine yet you emerge in Europe intent on creating a Soviet Empire. Mr Tusk turn your attentions to your own continent under your watch we are seeing oppression in Catalonia and a brutal crushing of the Mouvement des gilets jaunes. The brutal pictures that we are seeing you could be forgiven for believing they are from the days of Soviet invasions, perhaps the streets of Prague in the 60s. To use your words; “often the ones beaten are in the right”. Hell belongs your domain Mr Tusk. You are a classic example of a person who leaves their country to escape their culture who then tries to set up that same culture you've escaped in your adopted country.

I will turn my attention today to the banking sector, for here we are full of, I guess a form of Sophism logic. I do not ever recall a head of state or a British Prime Minister refer to the banking sector as the enemy. Francois Hollande did just that, yet he espouses vitriol towards the British people showing his and Macron's desire to punish us with his attempts to pull the banking sector from London in order to harm the Great British people. Fooled we are not!

For many years the EU have been meddling in the affairs of the city, not least by Monsieur Barnier, as notes of meetings with Lord King will attest to. The EU have tried hard to influence, even control the affairs of the city. Since 2008 this campaign has intensified with regulation flowing from Brussels due to the Western Financial crisis (The west refer to this as the global financial crisis for me this is a misnomer as the Asia region marched on regardless).  REFER TO MY NOTE HERE.

In particular, four measures are likely to have a large impact on the City: restrictions on the over-the-counter derivatives market; the EU’s implementation of the so-called Basel 3 agreement, which imposes tougher requirements for capital and liquidity; caps on bankers’ bonuses; and the proposed financial transactions (Tobin) tax. The Tobin Tax named after James Tobin a Nobel prize winner for economics in 1972. It was his hope after the end of exchange rate controls (the Bretton Woods agreement in 1971) to throw sand in the wheels of currency speculation.  Again this tax gains momentum championed by France through the corridors of the EU. Ironically, both taxes will do little to quell the city appetite as they will just relocate to New York, Dubai, Hong Kong or Singapore. A loss for the whole of Europe!

Briefly I'll turn to remainers. I've noticed, for some time how remainers always espouse the term I. One comment l received yesterday, where a business owner raged about WTO paperwork, the complexity of it, although he admitted he'd only completed the paperwork once as his business is Europe. A business he owns that deals with Europe smoothly.  He also said if WTO was so easy why do countries push for Free Trade Agreements. 

I have written here to alert, to open discussion on the opportunity of the 21C, this is Asia's century.  But again the hostility I've received to the notion of flying over Europe to chase far off dreams seem to some, well mind boggling. There is a lot of substance here to cover, I will try to deal with this as I write below although some of the excuses appear shallow.  

• First we are a community, we are not I or my business, we have a duty of care for each other. Perhaps if we did it will result in fewer employees knocking back anti depressants. 
• Remainers seem to think that all trade with the EU will end March 30th, where does this come from? 
• As for Free trade Agreements I think India have tried to negotiate with EU for eight years, and they, if they haven't already given up. 
• WTO, it seems there is a belief that our options will always be; remain in the EU or be locked to WTO in perpetuity, again why? Will the EU not want to trade with their biggest market, admittedly when sanity prevails they I'm sure, will want a free trade agreement with the UK. After all a trade surplus exists. 
• My final point; the excuse that Asia is too far I think is quite pathetic, one person used the argument that we must reduce our carbon footprint. Whilst I agree and I do hope they embrace electric cars. I do find such an attitude laudable as we not only holiday in Asia or Jamaica, St Lucia but we tuck into North Sea prawns with our surf and turf. Prawns that have been flown to Thailand, Vietnam to be shelled.

Shell Fish Pollution

On the subject of Prawns, I recently had dinner with a scientist from the EU. He alerted me of the risk that North Sea shell fish are travelling from rich waters  off the UK to be shelled in Asia.  They are being substituted by shell fish caught in waters in Asia with high mercury and arsenic content. I later asked Andrew Wilson from EU food sector this very question, he attempted to dismiss this notion as stupidity, as he does the views of Brexit leavers but he later guardedly admitted that yes it is a concern.

For today I will leave this blog here, thank you for reading.

Brexit - Our Food is Expensive Benefits Who?

Owen Paterson, formerly Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has estimated that when the UK withdraws from the CAP, the price of food to UK consumers will drop by about 7%, thereby adding to their real incomes.

The UK has been and will continue to be a net loser under the rules of CAP, ‘Common Agricultural Policy’. The European Union applies tariffs to imported food and subsidizes farmers such that price in the shops are artificially high.  Some tariffs on Dairy products are as high as 50%, the average sits at 35%. Other tariffs, sugar as an example there is a 25% tariff, cereals 15%. This is a burden on our weekly shopping bill, hence, why Owen Patterson claimed our weekly shopping bill will reduce by 7%.

However, by leaving the EU, opening the door to imports we will impact our home farmers.  Some level of debate will be needed to assist farmers to expand new ways of land use, perhaps environmental and tourism, this would require some form of public subsidy in the short term.  Regardless, support will be needed much as there was support prior to our entry to the Common Market back in 1973.

It's important to bear in mind two points 1. Farming in the UK generates only 1% of our GDP, manufacturing provides for 10%.  2. If you look to the other countries for examples then you quickly see that New Zealand were faced with a similar dilemma in 1985, tariffs were removed brining competition to an already desperate wine industry. Prior to 1985 New Zealand had a wine industry that only had an internal market.  The reason for this can be explained by a quote from Sir Lockwood Smith, former NZ High Commissioner to the UK, he referred to their wine industry, he likened it to drinking battery acid.  Today 30 years after the abolition of the tariff New Zealand has a vast international market and is respected for producing excellent wines.

When we are able to free ourselves from excessive EU regulations particularly around concerns for health, safety and environment, all of which do little for any of those three points they only add to the protectionist nature of the EU.

Since 1992, the EU has approved 2404 experimental GM field trials for research. In comparison, over the same time there have been 18,381 GM trials for research in the USA. In crops for commercial use, there is only one GM crop, an insect resistant maize variety, that is grown commercially in the EU and no GM crops have yet been approved for human consumption as fresh fruit or vegetable. In comparison, there have been 117 commercial releases in the USA since 1992 and in other countries outside Europe.

Source: Royal Society

GM is a controversial subject, many will see the EU as standing up for values but there are many studies that show the risks as limited. To not embrace GM in some regulated fashion severely handicaps the EU, particularly as global population increase. Currently the status quo protects a few interested parties, producer's at the expense of the consumer. We must open our minds and remove the shackles if for no other reason the family budgets are stretched way beyond the point where life is enjoyable.

There will be considerable adjustment required within the farming community, some may find it painful. But in the medium to long term they too will benefit should they make the adjustment alongside government policies. Just as the New Zealand wine producers did.

Owen Paterson, formerly Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has estimated that when the UK withdraws from the CAP, the price of food to UK consumers will drop by about 7%, thereby adding to their real incomes.

The UK has been and will continue to be a net loser under the rules of CAP, ‘Common Agricultural Policy’. The European Union applies tariffs to imported food and subsidizes farmers such that price in the shops are artificially high.  Some tariffs on Dairy products are as high as 50%, the average sits at 35%. Other tariffs, sugar as an example there is a 25% tariff, cereals 15%. This is a burden on our weekly shopping bill, hence, why Owen Patterson claimed our weekly shopping bill will reduce by 7%.

However, by leaving the EU, opening the door to imports we will impact our home farmers.  Some level of debate will be needed to assist farmers to expand new ways of land use, perhaps environmental and tourism, this would require some form of public subsidy in the short term.  Regardless, support will be needed much as there was support prior to our entry to the Common Market back in 1973.

It's important to bear in mind two points 1. Farming in the UK generates only 1% of our GDP, manufacturing provides for 10%.  2. If you look to the other countries for examples then you quickly see that New Zealand were faced with a similar dilemma in 1985, tariffs were removed brining competition to an already desperate wine industry. Prior to 1985 New Zealand had a wine industry that only had an internal market.  The reason for this can be explained by a quote from Sir Lockwood Smith, former NZ High Commissioner to the UK, he referred to their wine industry, he likened it to drinking battery acid.  Today 30 years after the abolition of the tariff New Zealand has a vast international market and is respected for producing excellent wines.

When we are able to free ourselves from excessive EU regulations particularly around concerns for health, safety and environment, all of which do little for any of those three points they only add to the protectionist nature of the EU.

Since 1992, the EU has approved 2404 experimental GM field trials for research. In comparison, over the same time there have been 18,381 GM trials for research in the USA. In crops for commercial use, there is only one GM crop, an insect resistant maize variety, that is grown commercially in the EU and no GM crops have yet been approved for human consumption as fresh fruit or vegetable. In comparison, there have been 117 commercial releases in the USA since 1992 and in other countries outside Europe.

Source: Royal Society

GM is a controversial subject, many will see the EU as standing up for values but there are many studies that show the risks as limited. To not embrace GM in some regulated fashion severely handicaps the EU, particularly as global population increase. Currently the status quo protects a few interested parties, producer's at the expense of the consumer. We must open our minds and remove the shackles if for no other reason the family budgets are stretched way beyond the point where life is enjoyable.

There will be considerable adjustment required within the farming community, some may find it painful. But in the medium to long term they too will benefit should they make the adjustment alongside government policies. Just as the New Zealand wine producers did.