In a disturbing snapshot of morality in the smartphone age, one in four people admit to keeping an intimate snap of an ex-lover on their phone, and one in five has shown a naked picture of a partner to someone else.

Meanwhile, a fifth of British men under 45 say they have been a victim of revenge porn, while half of the 2,000 people surveyed say they fear becoming a victim over pictures they have shared with a partner.

The poll, conducted for leading mobile phone insurer loveit coverit, reveals that 42% of Brits have had phone sex and one in 10 has done it behind a partner’s back. And a whopping two thirds of Brits aged 18-45 have sexted someone, often someone they were not in a relationship with.

A surprising 40% of people admit to snooping on a lover’s phone, say they have snooped on a partner’s phone, either because they suspected cheating or were « just being nosy ».

A fifth of young Brits would consider getting a tracking app to monitor their partner’s movements. 36% of respondents would feel distrusted if their partner were to get a tracking app.

Two thirds of people in relationships say that their partners know their phone password, whereas a third are unable to unlock their phone. Over half of those who have been caught red-handed whilst snooping through their partners phone have said that they were just being nosy, whereas over a third did it through lack of trust!

The post Half of all Brits under 45 have sent naked selfies on their mobile, according to a new study appeared first on Brussels Express.

During our conversation we touched on a variety of topics, including Tim’s background, his relationship to the UK and Belgium, and of course the Brexit process.

Thomas Moller-Nielsen: Can you speak a little bit about your parents’ backgrounds?

Tim Gheysen: My mother is from a single-parent, working-class family in Sheffield, who, with a bit of intelligence and a lot of hard work, was able to gain a place studying modern languages at Oxford. My father is from a Flemish working-class family in Kortrijk. They met while working for the European institutions in Brussels.

TMN: What language was spoken at home?

TG: My parents always spoke English together. In fact, the language spoken at home was almost exclusively English. I picked up my Dutch from speaking with Flemish friends who lived nearby, and from very occasionally speaking it with my father, with whom I mostly spoke English.

I remember making a conscious decision when I was very young to try to speak Dutch more regularly. I realised that my entire schooling was either in English or in French, and that I really wasn’t getting the chance to speak much Dutch on a day-to-day basis. Moreover, I realised the importance and value that Dutch, and languages in general, could play in my future; I figured that, if I didn’t try to work on my Dutch now, I might end up losing the ability to speak it entirely.

These days, I speak Dutch just as fluently as I speak English, although English is still definitely my mother tongue. I also speak to my dad in Dutch far more than I used to; now we probably speak in English just as much as we speak in Dutch.

TMN: Where did you go for university?

TG: I went to the University of Sheffield. I read Business Studies, French and Spanish. At first, I was excited about going to live and study in England. But I ended up really struggling with British culture, particularly British university culture and the associated binge-drinking. I mean, freshers’ week was fine – it obviously involved a lot of drinking – but then it just stayed like that all year, every year!

TMN: So you never seriously considered staying in the UK after your degree?

TG: No.

TMN: Do you feel more Belgian, or more British?

TG: I definitely feel more Belgian than British, although I also don’t feel 100% Belgian. I think I lack a full cultural understanding of the UK – and this is in spite of the fact that I listen to a lot of British music, read British books, watch a lot of British TV shows and films, and so on. But, in some respects, I also feel that I’m not fully Belgian. For instance, because I went to an international school I don’t have any experience of the Belgian curriculum or school system. These kinds of things add up.

TMN: Did you vote in the Brexit referendum?

TG: No, I didn’t. I hadn’t registered, and on top of that I also didn’t really have the time: I was busy setting up my new recruitment business.

TMN: Do you regret not having voted?

TG: Yes, as I would have voted Remain. But I also partly feel that it would have been unjust to vote. I don’t feel very British, so why should I be making decisions on their behalf?

TMN: Why would you have voted Remain?

TG: Because I love the EU. I appreciate the way in which it tries to erode the divisions that tend to accompany the separation of territory into nation-states. I also feel that the EU furthers the ability of member states to collaborate, communicate, and achieve a better world. It’s a great example of what cooperation among states can accomplish.

TMN: What are your thoughts on the divisions within British society, in particular British people’s differing attitudes towards the EU?

TG: Well, there’s no doubt that there was a certain amount of hostility toward the EU prior to the Brexit vote. Having said that, there was no real demand among the British people for a referendum. It just wasn’t the main priority for most people.

TMN: So you don’t think the referendum should have been called?

TG: No, I don’t think the referendum should have been called. Or, rather, if it had to be called, it should not have been called in the way that it was. Basically, I think the referendum was held without the UK’s leaders having a real plan of what to do if the result was to leave. Cameron thought he could call the referendum and win it, but he fatally underestimated the opposition and the overall level of resentment among the British public. He had no plan of what to do if Britain left; he’d done no research. And now he’s dragged the entire country into this ridiculous situation. I mean, regardless of whether you’re for leaving or for staying in the EU, no one could seriously have wanted what’s happening in the UK right now.

I also feel that at the time of the vote there was very little actual information conveyed to the public by the British media. It was mostly very partisan and sensationalist, both from the right-wing and the left-wing press. In my view, the media really failed to help the British people grasp the central issues. As a result of this, I think the British people had no idea, really, what leaving entailed; about what it would mean. This even applies in my own case: I like to consider myself a relatively well-educated and well-informed person, and yet I felt at the time that I couldn’t in all honesty make a fully informed assessment of whether the UK should stay in the EU or leave. And if the population isn’t properly informed, it sort of defeats the whole point of having a referendum in the first place, doesn’t it?

TMN: Isn’t this rather an elitist view, saying that people are too ill-informed to be able to make such a decision?

TG: No, not at all – as I said, it applies to myself as well! I couldn’t truly say that I made a properly informed assessment of the situation, despite being well-informed on the matter relative to most other people. I’m also confident that there are plenty people in the UK who feel the same way as me.

TMN: Why wouldn’t you have abstained in the referendum, then, if you admit to not being sufficiently well-informed on the issue?

TG: I was going with the information that I had at the time. On balance, given the limited information that I had, I thought it would be best to vote Remain. (Though, as I previously mentioned, I didn’t actually vote.) I didn’t really know what the best option was, though. To be honest, I would have preferred not to have been in a position where I was expected to make such a decision.

TMN: Are you against having referendums in general?

TG: No, I’m not. But I feel referendums should only be used when the nature and consequences of the decisions are immediately obvious and clear to the public, for instance in the case of legalising abortion or the death penalty. Cases that are more complicated, such as trade agreements or Brexit, should mostly be handled by elected officials who are paid to understand, consider and research those issues.

So no, I’m not in principle against referendums, or even against having a referendum on the UK leaving the EU. But the UK government should have first spent a substantial period of time studying all of the likely consequences in the event of leaving or staying, and then presented those findings, honestly, to the British people. Similarly, the media should have done its job, and presented the information to the British people in a fully factual, non-partisan manner: “this is what happens if we stay, this is what happens if we go”.

If both the media and the government had done that, and people really wanted to leave, then fine, we should have left the EU: that’s part of living in a democracy. I just disagree with the way the referendum was run, and the reasons for it.

TMN: Are you angry with the people who voted Leave?

TG: No, not at all. Obviously, in a democracy they have the right to vote as they please. They’re not bad people. But I do think the vast majority of them were not properly informed of the central issues – which (to repeat) I think was also true of the vast majority of Remainers, including myself.

TMN: What do you think the future holds for the UK?

TG: I think the UK will probably leave the EU eventually. But I also think that the EU wants to punish the UK, to make an example out of them. And I don’t think the EU is wrong to do so: in my view, the UK should contribute to the EU system if it wants to benefit from it. It’s likely paying your taxes. You may not like it, but it’s necessary in order to have good things like roads, schools, and hospitals.

There’s also no doubt in my mind that the EU feels very hurt by the the UK’s decision to leave, which is very understandable: the EU was created as a model of unity with shared beliefs and values, where different nations with different languages and cultures could come together to form a stronger whole. It’s a model that the UK has played a large part in sustaining and developing over the years – and now, after the Brexit vote, it’s looking like it might collapse.

If you also feel that you might be worth interviewing on similar issues, feel free to get in touch at tmollernielsen@brussels-express.eu

The post “I honestly don’t know whether I should have voted Remain or Leave” – A Belgian-Brit reflects on Brexit appeared first on Brussels Express.

Casale is one of a number of activists from New Europeans who are standing in this year’s European elections. Suzana Carp from New Europeans Brussels is also standing for ChangeUK, while Dr Ruvi Ziegler, New Europeans Oxford is a candidate for the Liberal Democrats, both in South East England.

James Beckles is a Labour candidate in London while Jane Morrice, former Deputy Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly and New Europeans member, is standing as an independent candidate in Northern Ireland. Commenting on the high number of candidates from New Europeans across a range of political parties, Dr Ruvi Ziegler said: “In the UK, New Europeans will be proudly fielding 10 candidates across 3 political parties. Our members are embodying the values that the organisation seeks to promote in the European Parliament.”

Despite his profile as a leading civil rights activist, Casale is unlikely to be elected as he has been placed last on the ChangeUK list in East of England at his request.

“I am the backstop candidate for ChangeUK,” said Casale. “My priority remains developing New Europeans mission in the EU. But I cannot remember a period when British politics was as broken as it is now. It is high time someone stood up to say the EU is not the problem, it is part of the solution and that is what I will be aiming to do.”

The post Founder of New Europeans to stand for Change UK in European elections in the UK appeared first on Brussels Express.

« What everybody expected, happened yesterday. A huge majority in the House of Commons rejected the deal. And honestly I have to tell you, I am not surprised. Since the outcome of the referendum, Westminster has produced a lot of majorities against something. Against membership of the Union. Against the Single Market. Against the Customs Union. Against the free movement of people. Against the Irish backstop. And I could continue.

The question is now how to break this deadlock, how to avoid a devastating no-deal. Therefore, we need urgently a majority in favor of something. A majority in the interest of Britain. And at the same time, a majority in the interest of the Union too. This can be achieved, if finally the political parties in Britain, and I mean all political parties start to put the interest of the country, the interest of Britain, above their own narrow party political interests. That Jeremy Corbin wants to become the next Prime Minister is legitimate. That Mrs. May wants to remain Prime Minister is legitimate as well. That the SNP wants to make Scotland independent is also legitimate. That the DUP wants the opposite and wants to stay in the UK is equally legitimate. So my message today is that whatever legitimate ambition everybody has, all have to come out of the trenches. All have to transcend the binary, system in which they are locked. A system that has produces antagonism. Brexit started as a catfight inside the conservative party, and this on the back of the European Union. But since the triggering of article 50, it has become far more than that. It became an existential question about Britain’s future, about Britain’s soul, so far bigger than ordinary conservative party politics.

I know, it’s not up to me, as a humble Belgian to lecture the Brits on what to do, but I think it’s time to tell our British friends that for the sake of Britain itself, it’s time for cross party cooperation. To define what the new relationship between the UK and the EU must be. To redefine also the ‘red lines’ that in fact have been unilaterally imposed by the hardliners of the conservative party.

We from the European Union are ready for a deep future relationship, even deeper than the one foreseen in the Political Declaration today. If there is a cross party majority in the House of Commons to go in such a direction, know that we are ready to fully engage.

Finally, two warnings. What we will not let happen, deal or no deal, is that the mess in British politics is imported into European politics. While we understand the UK could need more time, for us it is unthinkable that article 50 is prolonged beyond the European election date.

And my second warning concerns the interests of our citizens. EU citizens and UK citizens alike. Deal or no deal, we will do everything in our power to safeguard their rights, rights as foreseen in the Withdrawal Agreement. If necessary together with our LIBE committee, we will directly engage with the House of Commons and their Home Office Select Committee, to secure that. Our citizens can never, never be the victim of the party political games around Brexit. »

The post Are EU citizens becoming victims of party political games around Brexit? appeared first on Brussels Express.

Stella hails from a brewery in Leuven. Despite the brewer operating as early as 1336, Stella as we know it was only released in 1926 and initially just as a Christmas beer in Belgium. However, after commercial success, it was released all year round. The second world war halted production on the brewery in Belgium, but by 1960, about 100 million litres of Stella Artois were annually produced. With Stella gaining a presence, the British company Whitbread made plans to brew it under contract and in 1976 the beer was first introduced to the nation.

“Stella’s for the fellas who take their lager strong”

This was the first slogan Stella used in advertising the beer in the UK. Domestic beer in England is and was low – with most beers running at 4% alcohol content. Although there were stronger beers on the market, they were not widely drunk or served in pubs as the beers were often of poor quality, too high in alcohol content (meaning people would drink less) and were often associated with alcoholics. However, when Stella, a triple filtered continental beer came onto the British market, the 5.2% alcohol content was higher than the average beer served. Nonetheless, it soon became available at pubs and stores across the UK.

The 80’s and 90s saw the company increase their presence in the UK with many high production adverts which were known for their distinct style of mimicking European cinema.

An ex-landlady from Kent, the UK, remembers the time when Stella began to get popular. “I would say it was about the late 80s and early 90s that you started to see Stella sold at most pubs,” she says. “You’d see all sorts of trouble on the streets on the weekends. It’s not uncommon for a night of drinking, but something had seemed to up the ante.”

The triple filtered process meant it largely didn’t taste any different from a normal 4% lager and thus could be drunk at a similar rate to it. After three 4% beers containing 1.4 units each, 1.2 units of excess alcohol remain in the system. By comparison, three 5% beers with 1.8 units leads to 2.4 units excess. This extra alcohol content would eventually accumulate throughout the process of someone drinking and lead to a higher level of inebriation which created more potential for people to act impulsively and irrationally.

A reputation is built

This reputation of getting people easily drunk actually propelled a lot of its consumption for people on nights out, and it soon began to be associated with a particular characteristic of a person. The nickname “wife beater” became synonymous with the drink after people who had reportedly drunk too much Stella would go home and be abusive to their spouses.

Ryan Williams from London witnessed these stereotypes first hand. “My dad, who has a bit of a problem with drinking, would often come home with a crate of Stella and after a few drinks he’d start arguing with my mum.” Despite its slogan in the early 90’s being “Reassuringly expensive”, the beer was often sold at many local corner-shops and leading supermarkets at discounted rates due to its high demand.

A new image

Having noticed the poor image it had garnered in the UK, Stella made efforts to rebrand its beverages and disassociate itself with violence. The company lowered its alcohol content from 5.2% to 4% in 2008, and lobbyists working on behalf of the now owning company of Stella even tried to have all references of « wife beater » removed from the company’s Wikipedia page.

The recent years have been far kinder to the brewer as most who know the beer as “wife beater” is from the generation gone by, and its association with violent and anti-social behaviour has by in large decreased. Whether the lowered alcohol content helped that or changing demographics, it’s hard to say, but one thing is for sure, many Brits now know it as the Belgian beer.

Posted with permission from Brelgium
Photos: © unsplash, wikimedia

The post Why was Stella Artois known as ‘wife beater’ in Britain? appeared first on Brussels Express.

Since the creation of the EU, all EU citizens have enjoyed free reign to live and work anywhere in the EU countries. This immigration is done purely through moving to the new nation and registering; as citizens require no approvement from the host country’s government to stay. Although there are pathways to citizenship for the EU immigrants in their new home, they are often not taken up as they are not needed for them to remain or work in the country. This practice has been the case with many British expats in Belgium, as they chose to stay under the guise of the EU’s protection.

A shock result

The 24th of June, The referendum results for Brexit were in. Against all experts opinions, evaluations, and the British public’s consensus of the outcome, the UK voted to leave the European Union. This decision created a shock wave of effects across Europe and spurred a surge of Brits to apply for EU nation’s passports; with Ireland receiving 4000 requests just four days after the referendum.

Caught in the same panic of loss of EU citizenship were British citizens living in Belgium. The fear of being repatriated back to the UK created a growth in British expats in Belgium to begin looking at obtaining citizenship; with 526 British applications approved for Belgian citizenship in 2016, compared 127 in 2015.

What are the options?

Although Belgian citizenship is easy to acquire compared to other EU countries, it is not without its difficulties. There are three options that the majority of British expats are likely to be applicable for. Applicants must have lived and paid income tax for five years in the country; be married to a Belgian or have Belgian children who are minors. Given exceptions are if you have lived in the country for an extended period (10 years) and you can demonstrate your assimilation into Belgian society.

The most common route for Belgian citizenship is with the person having lived and paid income tax in Belgium for five years. However, this situation is problematic for those who have had work sabbaticals in between; even if they have been as little as one week, or for those who have lived in Belgium just short of the five-year criteria.

A difficult path

Ruth Friedman is a British expat living in Belgium. She has lived in Belgium for 10 years and was previously married to a Belgian. She divorced from her Belgian husband and has continued living in Belgium for ten years undisturbed since. The thought of applying for Belgian citizenship never occurred to her. This sentiment immediately changed after the Brexit results. ‘The minute the results came in that the UK was leaving the EU, I started preparing all my paperwork to apply for Belgian citizenship‘, Ruth says. ‘I didn’t like the uncertainty of what Brexit could do to my right to stay in Belgium, and with no progress made with Brexit talks, I think it was a good option to pursue.‘

A self-employed well-being counsellor, Ruth did not have a smooth pathway to Belgian citizenship. ‘I was in a situation where I had a sporadic history of employment in Belgium. This excluded me from going down the normal route of obtaining Belgian citizenship‘. Having lived in Belgium for ten years, an alternative path to citizenship was still available to Ruth. ‘I had to demonstrate my assimilation into Belgium society. This required me to learn Dutch to an A3 level.‘, Ruth says. ‘This was difficult because I was working a full-time job at the time, and they expect you to give 400 hours, with all classes being in the workweek. That meant I had to take months off of my work.‘

After an arduous few months, Ruth succeeded in her application; now owning dual citizenship with both Britain and Belgium. But her experience is only a small glimpse of the myriad of situations that British expats in Belgium have to contend.

Nuanced situations

Beverley Sinton is another British expat caught in the confusion of a pre-Brexit Belgium. Having no formal job, she spends her time volunteering and jointly lives off her husband’s salary. Her husband is an Irish citizen and an employee of the EU. The fact that he is an Irish citizen will give him the right to remain, however, as workers from the EU enjoy a diplomatic status, he pays no Belgian income tax. So Beverley may not be able to apply for citizenship under an official spouse visa that Belgium offers.

‘The trouble with Brexit is that no one knows what’s going on‘, Beverley says. ‘Nothing has been made clear to me, and there are so many unique and nuanced situations, you don’t know what might apply to you.‘ Beverley has not yet applied for Belgian citizenship as not only is her husband an EU citizen, but both her daughters were born in Belgium and posses Belgian citizenship.

With strong ties to Belgium, The prospect of repatriation is unlikely in Beverley’s case. However, The current sentiments of the UK government on post-Brexit agreements state that citizens who already have residency; Even those with British born children, will still have to reapply for their residency rights. If the UK heads for a hard Brexit, then it could happen that the EU would mimic any robust residency criteria that Britain enforce. Making it difficult for Beverley’s application post-Brexit.

A forgotten contingent

Perhaps the worst off from a hard Brexit are the British employed by the EU. An estimated 800 British people are hired to work in the EU institutions; with many of them choosing to live in Belgium. Not only will they face losing their jobs after Brexit, but now they are caught in a limbo where their status of obtaining citizenship is even more difficult; despite many of them having lived in Belgium for many years. With their diplomatic status exempting them from income tax, the Belgian government decided the EU protocol card is not valid for citizenship applications.

However, president of the EU commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, recently asked the Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel to offer British EU officals citizenship after Britain leaves the union and they lose their European citizenship. Michel said that his government were considering it, but has not yet offered any concrete answer or indication of what will happen.

Hoping for a deal

With those caught in the fringes of the Belgian application process, the best they can hope for is that an amicable deal made between the UK and the EU. The deadline for Brexit is now extended to allow sufficient progress to make a deal. Perhaps this could allow time for a more favourable deal to be made; one that allows residency for those unable to get citizenship.

But with Theresa May’s recent stance on Brexit, the ground gained seems to have stopped before progress could be made. With a variety of complicated issues surrounding Brexit, the prospect of a hard Brexit is looking like more of a possibility.

Text: Brelgium, photos: ©Pixabay

The post Brexit? What about the Brits in Belgium?! appeared first on Brussels Express.

It is a simply-made film: the people interviewed speak straight to the camera and are situated in their homes or familiar places like the local pub or park, all around the country. There is no direct storyline and the audience is not led in any one direction.

“The referendum was a rare opportunity for people to say what they wanted to say,” says one of the characters. In fact, Brexit being as divisive as it is, it is rare to hear people saying what they think in a setting free from prejudice, and that is what makes Brexitannia valuable.

Of course, some of the characters seem to fit the stereotypes. One woman, in her deck chair in a suburban garden, describes how regulations apparently banning curly cucumbers alarmed her about absurd EU bureaucracy and made her want to leave.

There are racists, one man pointing to his white skin and saying, “English is this colour.” Yet there are also surprises: a Polish man who would have voted Leave if he could, a young female UKIP supporter who says she doesn’t trust right-wing media, a middle-aged man who admits to feeling “territorial” and seeing migrants as a “threat” but who voted Remain.

The point is that this part of the film, subtitled “The People”, does not deliberately seek out either the typical cases – white working class Leave voters, or cosmopolitan, young and especially Scottish Remain voters – nor the exceptions.

There were good arguments for leaving the EU, just as there were good arguments to remain. By paying attention and giving people the time to speak, Brexitannia, allows those arguments to emerge eloquently and expressively.

Several people highlight the EU’s lack of accountability: “If your national government cocks up, you can vote them out. If the EU cocks up, you’re stuck with it.” Farmers and fishermen complain of unfair regulation. Nevertheless, these arguments were and are swamped by other issues: saying “Fuck off” to “arrogant politicians”, British jobs for British workers, going back to the days of empire. As one woman says, “It wasn’t even a vote about in or out. It was about immigration.”

These issues still arouse strong emotions and prejudices. In the cinema, I noticed people laughing at some of the less educated people in the film, even as they said, “there are a lot of assumptions made about Leave voters”.

Brexitannia’s “Part II: the experts” locates these divisions in the wider geopolitical context, with views from intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and Heidi Mirza. It is striking how abstract their discussion of neoliberalism and hegemonies seems after the personal testimonies of “the people”.

Nevertheless, the forces they identify – the platform increasingly given to right-wing nationalism or the influence of press magnate Rupert Murdoch – are stirring in their own way. Brexitannia is thus an informative film that is emotionally powerful by sheer virtue of the space it gives to opinions.

The post Brexitannia: Why Brits voted to remain or leave the EU appeared first on Brussels Express.

According to Alison Rose, the British Ambassador to Belgium, that is a good idea irrespective of Brexit. Rose was among the invited guests at a special event designed to promote the best of British beef (and lamb) to the Belgian market.

A select band of top quality Belgian chefs presented a cooking demonstration, using British beef and lamb, which was partly designed to showcase the products to a largely Belgian audience; comprising restauranteurs and representatives from the country’s horeca sector.

The Ambassador told Brussels Express that sales of British meat, both lamb and beef, were at all-time high and she was confident that such cross-border business will continue after the end of March 2019, when the UK is due to exit the EU. “We have very good meat and lamb products in the UK and production methods are particularly advanced. This is something that should be promoted more widely, including here in Belgium. “This is something that we in Britain should be rightly proud of.”

Rose said, “Sales of British meat in Belgium have been rising quite rapidly in recent times and that is a sign of the growing appreciation of this top-quality export.” I have every reason to believe that the close trading relationship we currently enjoy with Belgium and other EU members, not least in agricultural goods, will continue after we have left the EU.” She adds, “Of course, this is a two-way street: Belgians love our meat and lamb and we in Britain love Belgian chocolates and Belgian beers.”

It may not always be great for the tourist trade but, as she also points out, the relatively high rainfall levels in the UK are just one of the reasons why the conditions in which cattle, sheep and other food livestock are raised are “particularly excellent.”

The UK also enjoys an oceanic climate, producing an abundance of grassland and moorland, much of it ideal for raising and breeding purposes. This benefits breeders but also consumers including in Belgium, with top quality produce. It also helps, of course, that the emphasis is on a minimum use of fertilizers and that farms in the UK are subject to extremely stiff health safety regulations and codes of conduct.

This is as much aimed at safeguarding animal health as ensuring the quality of the end product. The event was told that studies show that animals fed on fresh grass produce 75 percent more Omega 3 than others, 300 percent more vitamin E and 400 percent more Vitamin A.

British meat also enjoys another asset, namely the large number of different cuts it produces. Another speaker,Remi Fourrier, director of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) in France, also spoke enthusiastically about British meat and the “particularly high environmental standards” that the industry boasts.“It is well known in our industry that the UK standards are very high and this is a message we want to disseminate to a wider audience. UK farming also offers some of the best farm assurance standards in the world. »

All British suppliers are independently audited and accredited to one of the National Farm Assurance schemes controlled by Assured Food Standards, which allow the meat to display the Red Tractor logo. Not all countries have schemes like this but the Quality Standard Mark for beef and lamb is a scheme that provides customers with high levels of assurance about the meat they buy. The Quality Standard for beef and lamb is the only scheme in the UK to cover eating quality.

All beef and lamb carrying the mark is chosen according to a strict selection process to ensure it is succulent and tender. Quality Standard beef and lamb is produced to higher standards than required by law with a supply chain which is fully assured and independently inspected at every stage from farm to meat counter.

The Quality Standard Mark also tells consumers where their beef and lamb is from. For example, meat from an animal born, raised and slaughtered in England will carry the Quality Standard beef or Quality Standard lamb Mark indicating English origin with the St George’s flag. If an animal cannot meet all the criteria, for example it is born in Scotland or Wales, it will be able to carry the Quality Standard Mark but indicate British origin with the Union flag.

The easily identifiable Quality Standard logo is designed to maximise your confidence about the meat you are buying, safe in the knowledge that all meat carrying the Quality Standard meets stringent quality assurance criteria and is fully traceable.

Fabian Frances, owner of Toucan Brasserie and Toucan Sur Mer, two Brussels restaurants, is a firm believer in the quality of British beef. He said, “My chefs tell me that, in terms of tenderness and sheer quality, it is the best they use and I am certainly not going to argue with their assessment. Of course, they also work with meat from other countries, such as the Argentine and France, but invariably it is British meat that is their first choice.”

So, Brexit or no Brexit, there’s no doubting that British beef and lamb will continue to merit its place at the top of Europe’s culinary tables.

The post Brexit uncertain? British beef is not appeared first on Brussels Express.