Thread by @nvonwestenholz

1/ Only just got round to reading last week’s @spectator editorial on Trump's visit and post-Brexit trade opportunities. We need better than this if we’re to have an informed debate about our optimum trade relationships with the EU and US post-Brexit

spectator.co.uk/2019/06/playin…

2/ This extract is an irritating straw man that advocates of quick and dirty trade deals keep making – that “chlorinated chicken” issue is all about the safety of chlorine. It isn’t.

3/ Firstly it’s primarily about the safety of the chicken, not chlorine – has the treatment (chlorine or otherwise) eliminated the presence of otherwise harmful pathogens. By the way. there is some recent research that suggests not:
theguardian.com/world/2018/may…

4/ Secondly, it’s about the way in which poultry is reared. Pathogen reduction treatments (washes) are part of a system that accepts those pathogens aren’t controlled during the lifetime of the bird.

sussex.ac.uk/spru/newsandev…

5/ In the UK we take an approach that seeks to protect the health of the bird during its life so that washes aren’t needed at the end. This farm to fork welfare approach across our livestock sectors is something we believe the public wants to continue.

6/ Trade deals with countries who can produce food more cheaply by taking different approaches (ones that would often be illegal here) ultimately means less higher welfare meat. Cheaper, probably, but farmed in a way the UK public wants? Almost certainly not.

7/ Trotting out the “chlorine’s perfectly safe” argument is either deliberately seeking to avoid the real issue, or demonstrating a lack of awareness of what the real issue is.

8/ Then this conclusion to the editorial just seems lacking in any self-awareness. Proponents of a trans-Atlantic deal basically advocate moving away from the largest free trade area the world has ever known towards a looser deal.

9/ There are pros and cons to doing this, but when most of our trade in agriculture is tariff free within the EU (and much of the rest is also tariff free with partners who the EU has preferential deals with) it seems odd to describe a pivot away from this in protectionist terms

10/ Yes, free trade is indeed a form of “mutual co-operation.” But increasing that co-operation in bilateral terms with one partner almost inevitably reduces it with another.

11/ And when the advantages of a US/UK deal don’t add up to same advantages of a close EU relationship then this “benefits of free trade” argument doesn’t lead to the conclusion the Spectator thinks it does (as @SamuelMarcLowe and others explain here:

ft.com/content/40d74c… )

12/ The question around trade and Brexit is this: who’s regulatory orbit do we want to be part of – the US or the EU? There's a debate to be had about the trade-offs involved. But let’s make sure that debate are based on accurate reporting of the issues at hand /END