Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Trump: Boris Johnson's Brexit will hamper future trade with UK

Status
Not open for further replies.
The better deal the US gives us the less likely we are to agree to restrictive EU conditions.

Such as food safety regulations? Let's look at Salmonella poisoning as an example of how "restrictive" they are.

In England and Wales, 24 hospitalised and 0 deaths. In the USA, 23,000 hospitalised and 452 deaths.

Meanwhile, you could always consider how well the Federal Aviation Authority has been handling aircraft safety; the 737 MAX is looking like such a fine advert for light-touch regulation and insisting that corporations are the best arbiters of "safe enough", because of course they won't allow profit and market share to overcome best practice...

And of course "getting rid of restrictive regulations" such as the Glass-Steagall Act in the USA was such a fine advert for "light touch regulation" in the financial sector. ENRON, Goldman-Sachs, subprime mortgages, that whole 2008 financial crash thing...
 
Such as food safety regulations? Let's look at Salmonella poisoning as an example of how "restrictive" they are.

In England and Wales, 24 hospitalised and 0 deaths. In the USA, 23,000 hospitalised and 452 deaths.
That is some fascinating math that you use there. You are comparing the rate per 100,000 in the UK to an estimate of the total number in the entire US and deciding that the former is better because the number is smaller.

Let's quote what your reports actually say. For England and Wales:
The number of Salmonella cases in 2016 was similar to that in 2015, with 8,558 reported cases in 2015 and 8,630 reported cases in 2016.

From the US table it is "23,128", most of which they state is "Domestically acquired foodborne".

A quick google states that the population of England and Wales is 56.1 million. The population of the US is 327.2 million.

If we adjust the number of cases for the US according to the difference in population we get.
23128 * (56.1 / 327.2) = 3965

The last time that I took math 3,965 was less than 8,630. A lot less. Using your data the UK rate of food poisoning that you selected was 2.2 times higher in the UK than in the US. Food safety in Europe must be horrifically bad, right?

(...) And of course "getting rid of restrictive regulations" such as the Glass-Steagall Act in the USA was such a fine advert for "light touch regulation" in the financial sector. ENRON, Goldman-Sachs, subprime mortgages, that whole 2008 financial crash thing...
European financial regulation during that era was no better, and loads of European banks fell over and had to be bailed out by the taxpayers. About the only major country which didn't suffer a financial collapse was Canada, and that was because Canada was the only one who didn't deregulate their banks.
 
That is some fascinating math that you use there. You are comparing the rate per 100,000 in the UK to an estimate of the total number in the entire US and deciding that the former is better because the number is smaller.

Let's quote what your reports actually say. For England and Wales:


From the US table it is "23,128", most of which they state is "Domestically acquired foodborne".

A quick google states that the population of England and Wales is 56.1 million. The population of the US is 327.2 million.

If we adjust the number of cases for the US according to the difference in population we get.
23128 * (56.1 / 327.2) = 3965

The last time that I took math 3,965 was less than 8,630. A lot less. Using your data the UK rate of food poisoning that you selected was 2.2 times higher in the UK than in the US. Food safety in Europe must be horrifically bad, right?


European financial regulation during that era was no better, and loads of European banks fell over and had to be bailed out by the taxpayers. About the only major country which didn't suffer a financial collapse was Canada, and that was because Canada was the only one who didn't deregulate their banks.

Which just goes to prove that you can manipulate figures such as ratios and percentages to come up with whatever conclusion you want.

Meanwhile

Of course, that report was before the NHS starting bumping off people with contaminated sandwiches.
 
Such as food safety regulations? Let's look at Salmonella poisoning as an example of how "restrictive" they are.

In England and Wales, 24 hospitalised and 0 deaths. In the USA, 23,000 hospitalised and 452 deaths.

Meanwhile, you could always consider how well the Federal Aviation Authority has been handling aircraft safety; the 737 MAX is looking like such a fine advert for light-touch regulation and insisting that corporations are the best arbiters of "safe enough", because of course they won't allow profit and market share to overcome best practice...

And of course "getting rid of restrictive regulations" such as the Glass-Steagall Act in the USA was such a fine advert for "light touch regulation" in the financial sector. ENRON, Goldman-Sachs, subprime mortgages, that whole 2008 financial crash thing...
No, such as staying in the customs zone and not making trade deals with other countries that don't match the EU deal.

Although I could mention chlorinated chickens, a classic fake safety measure designed to protect EU farmers, and the fact that a certain G Brown managed to let our banks get involved in subprime mortgages quite easily, despite the fact that we were in the EU.
 
Would that be Poulet avec jus de Chlorine?
Like the water you drink every day is Leau avec jus de Chlorine. Funny I've yet to hear the EU argue for removing that chlorine on the specious grounds that it means our product is safer because our workers obey hygiene rules better than yours. Imagine if they made this claim for say the drug industry, we don't need to terminally sterilise drug products because our factories are kept cleaner than US ones. Would you believe it and trust them.
 
The safe word is 'botulism'
Not in France it's not https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03079457.2014.957644
however the WHO doesn't consider poultry to be a significant source of botulism. The problems with campylobacter and salmonella are far more common
 
Like the water you drink every day is Leau avec jus de Chlorine. Funny I've yet to hear the EU argue for removing that chlorine on the specious grounds that it means our product is safer because our workers obey hygiene rules better than yours. Imagine if they made this claim for say the drug industry, we don't need to terminally sterilise drug products because our factories are kept cleaner than US ones. Would you believe it and trust them.
Loads of food produced in the EU is washed with chlorine, just not chicken.
 
That is some fascinating math that you use there. You are comparing the rate per 100,000 in the UK to an estimate of the total number in the entire US

No,I was referring to Table 6 on page 11 (link), which deals in totals across England and Wales. There isn't any "this is a rate per 100,000" qualifier on that particular table, as it deals in totals, and breaks down the Salmonella infections by type.

I'm often wrong, and willing to admit it when I am, but you could at least agree that there's a big difference between "0 deaths from Salmonella in England/Wales in 2016" and the US figure of "estimated 452 deaths from Salmonella per year".

And I'd be curious to see how I've misinterpreted the figure of "24 hospitalised from Salmonella in England/Wales" as a total across the different types of non-Typhoidal Salmonella in Table 6.
 
Last edited:
According to this, the US is going to try and muscle in using what it thinks are its buying power:


Can't say I would blame them.
I can't read the article due to the pay-wall, but US lobbyists routinely have a long wish list before any trade negotiation. Private wish lists however don't necessarily translate into government policy, and government policy doesn't necessarily translate into trade deals. US lobbyists got very little of what they wanted out of the recent NAFTA changes.

You just have to keep saying that "no deal is better than a bad deal" and that you are ready and willing to walk out and trade on WTO terms, as Canada and Mexico repeatedly told the US. That however is true for any trade or other negotiations with anyone, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a total muppet who needs to be kept as far away from trade policy as possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top