Tell me again - the devil is in the detail - what are the specifics.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8702/CBP-8702.pdf
Rather it would place requirements on a trade deal being laid for ratification under the CRAG Act and refers to “equivalence” in standards rather than adherence to a specific standard.
They argued that the New Clauses could be incompatible with WTO requirements and could fetter UK trade negotiations. - That detail?
pg 107
New Clause 1 and New Clause 2Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Neil Parish (Con) tabled New Clause 2 which had the support of the Committee. This would have required Ministers to confirm to Parliament before laying a Free Trade Agreement under the Constitutional Reform and Government Act (CRAG) 2010 that the trade deal would not allow for lower standard products to be imported. This would not be a blanket ban on imports as this could be non-compliant with World Trade Organisation (WTO) commitments. Rather it would place requirements on a trade deal being laid for ratification under the CRAG Act and refers to “equivalence” in standards rather than adherence to a specific standard. Under the proposed Clause, a trade deal would not be able to be ratified in effect. without the statement on standards being made to the House Speaking to his proposed New Clause, Mr Parish argued that other countries, such as the US, should adopt higher food production standards. He said that:I want great trade deals. I am not a little Englander who will defend our agriculture against all imports—quite the reverse. I think competition is good, but on a level playing field that allows us to produce great food and allows our consumers to have great food, and makes sure that we deliver good agriculture and environment for the future.412Simon Hoare tabled New Clause 1. This would more generally have banned imports of substandard imports under a trade deal. It related to specified standards (to be set out in a UK standards register) and to any imports, not just those in a specified trade treaty as proposed by New Clause 2. New Clause 1 provided that under a Free Trade Agreement food could be imported into the UK: only if the standards to which those goods were produced were as high as, or higher than, standards which at the time of import applied under UK law relating to— (a) animal welfare,(b) protection of the environment,(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and(d) plant health.413Introducing the New Clause, Mr Hoare said that neither it nor New Clause 2 were about “stymieing free trade agreements” as these could deliver “huge potential benefits”. However he said that:There is no merit in deliberately setting out in Government policy the creation of an unlevel playing field. Food imports to this country would be cheap for no reason bar the fact that they were raised to lower standards. [...] Cheap food imports would remain cheap only while there was a viable scale of domestic production
What do you find thats so objectionable?