Brexit: of comments and commentary
By Richard North - February 8, 2021
It was George Orwell, in his essay on nationalism, who wrote of contaminating mental processes. I know exactly what he means. As the noise level increases, one is constantly assailed by a torrent of information and opinion, making objective analysis extremely difficult. Too much exposure makes it almost impossible to avoid the taint.
In order to write this blog, therefore, I have to manage information flows. That requires being selective with sources and excluding comment and opinion until I have reached my own views of the subject. Only once I have done that can I afford to delve into other people’s ideas. Thus, I really do not want the comments section turned into a notice board for sources I am trying to avoid.
As to my writing, in each post I try to introduce a theme – or a limited number of themes. Then, once published, the piece is open to comment on the content. And it is very much the case that the comments are an integral part of the blog – they are not an optional extra. I see blogging as a two-way process, a conversation between writer and readers, with the exchange being of mutual benefit.
Comments, however, represent a major investment in my time and, if they are to add value to the blogging process, they too must be managed. But my management can only go so far without the active cooperation of people who wish to comment.
Let me, at this point, state the obvious. No one is forced to read this blog, and still less is anyone obliged to add their views. But if anyone is inclined to comment, the golden rule is that they should add value.
However, the single most troubling issue that we have to address is the seeming inability of many commenters to stay on-topic. Sometimes there is good reason as the theme is not always clear. But yesterday was not one of those times.
The theme I offered yesterday was quite disturbing. We have a media that is largely – by accident or design – misrepresenting the effects of Brexit in a way that is playing into the hands of Johnson. It is countered only by the ill-focused wailing of affected businesses and trade groups, their laments mostly featured in the left-wing press where they have little political traction.
With the Brexit process dominated by an apparently uncaring and certainly unresponsive government, we look to be in for a torrid time, made more harsh than necessary by the lack of official action.
That, I would have thought, might be a strong enough theme to provoke a focused discussion – perhaps covering a number of areas. Not least, the basic thesis was open to challenge, but commenters could also have found supportive evidence and posted details and their views on them.
Most of all, the comments were wide open to a discussion about how to address the issues raised, and especially on how to deal with a media which seems to be getting worse by the day and which is clearly incapable of reporting on post-Brexit events with any depth or clarity.
A typical example comes in the Guardian today, where we are told that: “Shellfish exporters have been taken aback by a ban on the export of unprocessed bivalve molluscs such as oysters and scallops”.
The report continues with the “intelligence” that “the government had hoped the ban could be lifted in April, but the European commission suggested last week that the rule, which applies to imports to the EU from third countries, would be permanent”. And then, to illustrate my other point about ineffectual businesses and trade groups, we see:
Chris Vinnicombe, who fishes for oysters on the Fal estuary in Cornwall, told BBC Politics South West: “Boris [Johnson]’s wonderful deal for the fishing industry – which obviously it is not – this deal should have actually incorporated the likes of live bivalve molluscs. This is going to end up as a complete write-off. It’s going to finish the whole fishery here. The Fal oyster fishery is one small part of it. This is a country-wide problem”.
We’ve had a robust discussion on this blog about these issues, which has not always helped to shed light on the matter. As it stands, I have asserted that there is no ban, as such, on third country export of unprocessed bivalve molluscs to the EU.
What is not understood by commenters here is that, in the main, exactly the same EU rules for the production of food apply to “food business operators” serving the EU market, whether they are EU based or in third countries. On that basis, what is permitted (or, for that matter, prohibited) in respect of EU-based operators applies in the same fashion to non-EU operators, except in the latter case where there is a specific prohibition addressed generically to third countries, or to a specific country.
Time and time, I have pointed out that there is no generic ban on third country export of unprocessed bivalve molluscs to the EU and, while there are country-specific bans, none apply to the UK. Yet, although none of my commenters can point either to a generic or specific ban, every time the matter has been raised, there have been a crop of posts denying that reality. In fact, a large number of UK (class B) production areas are specifically authorised to export to the EU (follow the links).
Here, I need to raise another few points. My original qualification is as an environmental health officer and I am a food safety specialist. I have also done time as a port health inspector. Furthermore, I’ve been around a long time. The very first Community legislation I ever had to deal with was Directive 71/118/EEC, which tells you how long I’ve worked in this area.
In addition, I am one of those very rare creatures, an EHO with a PhD, where I investigated epidemiological systems with respect to Salmonellosis, thus making me a qualified researcher. I spent four years at the coal face in the European Parliament, have written numerous articles on EU-related matters, and worked with Christopher Booker from 1992 until his death on such matters. I’ve also worked as an advisor to a number of MPs, including an environment secretary.
I’ve then worked for three trade bodies, representing the egg sector, slaughterhouses and artisan cheesemakers. And I’ve lost track of the amount of time I’ve spent as an expert witness in court cases, including the famous John Barr fatal accident inquiry, and the Lanark Blue case, where I took on the entire international microbiology establishment on the pathogenicity of Listeria monocytogenes, and won the case.
When it comes to food safety and food law, therefore, I can rightly call myself an expert. I don’t make a big thing of it but anyone wanting to take me on, on this subject, needs to be aware of that. If keyboard warriors want, airily to tell me I’m wrong in my specialist areas, they need to come up with better arguments than they have been doing so far.
As for the media, the Guardian extract which I’ve used tells us where we’re at – a blind, lumpen, dogmatic reiteration of a false mantra – typifying the media’s inability to learn from any source which is not within their narrow circle of reference.
Tackled on this same subject, about the absence of a ban, Alan Payne, who kicked off the story for Politics Home, thought that calling his reporting “incorrect” was “unfair“.
That, though, is not to deny the possibility of error on my part, but to find me out readers need to appreciate what we’re dealing with. In just the subset of food-related law, covering “official controls”, we have the new Official Controls Regulation (OCR) No 2017/625 on 15 March 2017, which replace Regulation (EU) No 882/2004 on official controls and other legislation which previously governed the control and enforcement of rules along the agri-food chain.
To give you an indication of the level of change we’ve experienced, the effects of the OCR were to repeal Regulations (EU) No 854/2004 and (EU) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directives 89/608/EEC, 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 91/496/EEC, 96/23/EC, 96/93/EC, 97/78/EC and Council Decision 92/438/EEC.
The OCR also amended control rules: Regulations (EU) No 999/2001, (EU) No 396/2005, (EU) No 1069/2009, (EU) No 1107/2009, (EU) No 1151/2012, (EU) No 652/2014, (EU) 2016/429 and (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Regulations (EU) No 1/2005 and (EU) No 1099/2009 and Council Directives 98/58/EC, 1999/74/EC, 2007/43/EC, 2008/119/EC and 2008/120/EC.
This is just a start. It has to be said that any body of law which is as complex as this is not fit for purpose. Therefore, the idea that the media are going to get to grips with the subject – or even that there are people in government on top of their game – is somewhat optimistic.
Despite the media shunning independent news blogs (in the past having actively sought to sabotage them), we are, therefore, the last bastion of serious inquiry on such matters. That we are able to function effectively requires as much discipline from the commenters as it does from the blog writers.
Thus, in these troubled times, I need our commenters to up their game. I reiterate my earlier point, that no one is obliged to add their views. But if they do, they are very welcome, as long as their input adds value. If you wish to play to a different set of rules, there are plenty of other places to go.