ChatterBank0 min ago
Brexit: 71 Pages Of Paperwork For 1 Lorry Of Fish
BBC News Brexit: 71 pages of paperwork for 1 lorry of fish
https:/
The title says it all, B-exit equals more paperwork not less!!
Examples of less paperwork.. streamlined modern systems??
https:/
The title says it all, B-exit equals more paperwork not less!!
Examples of less paperwork.. streamlined modern systems??
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Roobaba. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Paperwork Update..
BBC News Brexit effect: No custard creams for Brits in Europe
https:/
BBC News Brexit effect: No custard creams for Brits in Europe
https:/
News Update
The good news and the bad news?
BBC News - Brexit lorry chaos avoided as freight flows 'back to normal'
https:/
BBC News - Post-Brexit trade: 'If you don't speak French, you're stuffed'
https:/
The good news and the bad news?
BBC News - Brexit lorry chaos avoided as freight flows 'back to normal'
https:/
BBC News - Post-Brexit trade: 'If you don't speak French, you're stuffed'
https:/
The idea that we could leave the single market and expect frictionless trading was always a fantasy. Unfortunately this situation is what the majority voted for and any moderate form of Brexit was dismissed by swivel-eyed fanatics as not being "pure" or "proper" enough. So we are where we are - trading with our closest neighbours is going to be more expensive and difficult in the long run. Nothing to be done about it now.
//... any moderate form of Brexit was dismissed by swivel-eyed fanatics as not being "pure" or "proper" enough.//
It doesn't take much to begin the "swivel-eyed" insults.
The problem with the "moderate" forms of Brexit that were proposed was that they were not Brexit at all. Many of them entailed the UK being bound to the EU's Customs Union and Single Market. This would have had two totally unacceptable repercussions: it would have prevented the UK from striking its own trade deals elsewhere across the world; it would have left the UK bound to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
There is nothing "swivel-eyed" in wanting to see an end to both of those. They are principle benefits of leaving the EU and without them we may as well have remained. Such a course is no more a "moderate" form of Brexit as is being only two months pregnant. You can't have a "moderate" departure; you're either in or you're out and thankfully we are out.
It is quite obvious the benefits of Brexit will take time to accrue. Firstly the UK must find trading partners who want to trade on a sensible basis (which the EU, in many respects at present does not). It was also quite obvious that the EU would make UK:EU trade as cumbersome as possible. That is because it is a protectionist bloc and would far rather see its members protected from outside competition than see them prosper through sensible trading.
There is no chance that the EU will change its attitude in this respect and would prefer self-inflicted harm to pragmatism. Hopefully in time - before their economy sinks to too low a level - they will learn that the UK is no longer one of its members and it will also learn that trade can be undertaken without being part of their protectionist institutions. But I'll not hold my breath. If they don't it will be their loss because there are plenty of nations that will and many of those nations (with 93% of the global population) have growing economies, whilst that of the EU is in steady decline.
It doesn't take much to begin the "swivel-eyed" insults.
The problem with the "moderate" forms of Brexit that were proposed was that they were not Brexit at all. Many of them entailed the UK being bound to the EU's Customs Union and Single Market. This would have had two totally unacceptable repercussions: it would have prevented the UK from striking its own trade deals elsewhere across the world; it would have left the UK bound to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
There is nothing "swivel-eyed" in wanting to see an end to both of those. They are principle benefits of leaving the EU and without them we may as well have remained. Such a course is no more a "moderate" form of Brexit as is being only two months pregnant. You can't have a "moderate" departure; you're either in or you're out and thankfully we are out.
It is quite obvious the benefits of Brexit will take time to accrue. Firstly the UK must find trading partners who want to trade on a sensible basis (which the EU, in many respects at present does not). It was also quite obvious that the EU would make UK:EU trade as cumbersome as possible. That is because it is a protectionist bloc and would far rather see its members protected from outside competition than see them prosper through sensible trading.
There is no chance that the EU will change its attitude in this respect and would prefer self-inflicted harm to pragmatism. Hopefully in time - before their economy sinks to too low a level - they will learn that the UK is no longer one of its members and it will also learn that trade can be undertaken without being part of their protectionist institutions. But I'll not hold my breath. If they don't it will be their loss because there are plenty of nations that will and many of those nations (with 93% of the global population) have growing economies, whilst that of the EU is in steady decline.
"The problem with the "moderate" forms of Brexit that were proposed was that they were not Brexit at all. "
Says who? Many brexiters were quite happy with Norway+ or "flexit". Who are you to say that they were not "true believers?" You can see why some people see your stance as fanatical.
"You can't have a "moderate" departure; you're either in or you're out and thankfully we are out."
But in reality, you can. The EEA members prove it. They are not in the EU and are not controlled by it in any significant degree... we on the other hand have boldly left in order to get pushed around by economic giants by the US.
You take an extremist uncompromising stance and that's fine... but you can't then get all sensitive when people criticise it or point it out for what it is.
Says who? Many brexiters were quite happy with Norway+ or "flexit". Who are you to say that they were not "true believers?" You can see why some people see your stance as fanatical.
"You can't have a "moderate" departure; you're either in or you're out and thankfully we are out."
But in reality, you can. The EEA members prove it. They are not in the EU and are not controlled by it in any significant degree... we on the other hand have boldly left in order to get pushed around by economic giants by the US.
You take an extremist uncompromising stance and that's fine... but you can't then get all sensitive when people criticise it or point it out for what it is.
//The EEA members prove it.//
The three EEA members which are not EU members (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) are “associate members” of the EU by any other name. They largely comply with EU legislation apart from the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy (though quite how much either of those – especially the latter – would affect Liechtenstein is not entirely clear), They pay into the EUs budget (see below), they are subject to the free movement of people and they are subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Their relationship with the EU is governed by an EU directive rather than a bilateral treaty. The payments made by the three are used to “…reduce social and economic disparities in Europe.” These contributions amount to something like €0.7 billion per annum and the sum is made available for “project funding in the 15 beneficiary states in Central and Southern Europe.” Quite why they should contribute to nations (which the EU calls “states”) in Central and Southern Europe is not entirely clear, but they do so nonetheless. For all of that compliance and contribution they get no representation in any of the EU’s institutions. So hardly a good model for a country that is trying to rid itself of the pernicious influence of the EU.
//…but it is rather fanatical and dismissive to insist there was never any brexit except hard brexit.//
The notion of “hard”, “medium” and “soft” Brexits amused me throughout the past four years. There can only be one form of Brexit. That is where the UK ceases to be a member of the EU and is no longer bound by any of its legislation or subject to the whims of any of its bureaucrats. You cannot be a “partial” member of any association; you are either a member (when you pay all the dues and obey all the rules) or a non-member (when you don’t do any of those things). Countries in the world are either members of the EU (27) or they are not (about 170). The trading relationship we will follow with the EU has nothing to do with our being a member. The problem was the EU (and some of our own politicians) tried to insist that it was.
BTW, I don’t mind being branded an extremist. That is quite a subjective description and in your interpretation it obviously applies to anybody, of any nation, who wants to see his nation’s affairs determined by its own Parliament without having to seek confirmation of its decisions from a supranational, unelected clique. Most of the 170-odd non-EU nations all seem to manage without that restriction and many of them fare far more prosperously than most EU nations do. But a bit less of the “swivel-eyed”, please. There’s no call for it. I have been carefully studying the EU and its predecessors since 1992, when it became clear to me what path the Euromaniacs had decided to pursue. I know quite a bit about the EU and its associated cousins. There was nothing “swivel-eyed” in my decision in that year that I would, if ever given the chance, vote for the UK to leave the EU. Nothing in the 24 years between then and the referendum caused my eyes to swivel (or my mind to change) and I assumed that the Brexit we would get would be near enough what we have (apart from the NI issue and the fishing problem). I fully expect the NI issue to be addressed properly when time permits. But let’s keep the conversation civilised. During the last four years I have been branded a bigot, a xenophobe, a racist, a swivel-eyed loon, a Little Englander and much more besides. Water off a duck’s back because I am none of those things. But I don’t engage sensibly with anybody who bandies those terms about.
The three EEA members which are not EU members (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) are “associate members” of the EU by any other name. They largely comply with EU legislation apart from the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy (though quite how much either of those – especially the latter – would affect Liechtenstein is not entirely clear), They pay into the EUs budget (see below), they are subject to the free movement of people and they are subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Their relationship with the EU is governed by an EU directive rather than a bilateral treaty. The payments made by the three are used to “…reduce social and economic disparities in Europe.” These contributions amount to something like €0.7 billion per annum and the sum is made available for “project funding in the 15 beneficiary states in Central and Southern Europe.” Quite why they should contribute to nations (which the EU calls “states”) in Central and Southern Europe is not entirely clear, but they do so nonetheless. For all of that compliance and contribution they get no representation in any of the EU’s institutions. So hardly a good model for a country that is trying to rid itself of the pernicious influence of the EU.
//…but it is rather fanatical and dismissive to insist there was never any brexit except hard brexit.//
The notion of “hard”, “medium” and “soft” Brexits amused me throughout the past four years. There can only be one form of Brexit. That is where the UK ceases to be a member of the EU and is no longer bound by any of its legislation or subject to the whims of any of its bureaucrats. You cannot be a “partial” member of any association; you are either a member (when you pay all the dues and obey all the rules) or a non-member (when you don’t do any of those things). Countries in the world are either members of the EU (27) or they are not (about 170). The trading relationship we will follow with the EU has nothing to do with our being a member. The problem was the EU (and some of our own politicians) tried to insist that it was.
BTW, I don’t mind being branded an extremist. That is quite a subjective description and in your interpretation it obviously applies to anybody, of any nation, who wants to see his nation’s affairs determined by its own Parliament without having to seek confirmation of its decisions from a supranational, unelected clique. Most of the 170-odd non-EU nations all seem to manage without that restriction and many of them fare far more prosperously than most EU nations do. But a bit less of the “swivel-eyed”, please. There’s no call for it. I have been carefully studying the EU and its predecessors since 1992, when it became clear to me what path the Euromaniacs had decided to pursue. I know quite a bit about the EU and its associated cousins. There was nothing “swivel-eyed” in my decision in that year that I would, if ever given the chance, vote for the UK to leave the EU. Nothing in the 24 years between then and the referendum caused my eyes to swivel (or my mind to change) and I assumed that the Brexit we would get would be near enough what we have (apart from the NI issue and the fishing problem). I fully expect the NI issue to be addressed properly when time permits. But let’s keep the conversation civilised. During the last four years I have been branded a bigot, a xenophobe, a racist, a swivel-eyed loon, a Little Englander and much more besides. Water off a duck’s back because I am none of those things. But I don’t engage sensibly with anybody who bandies those terms about.
This 'news' is 3 weeks old & '71 pages of paperwork' are not 71 pages of forms to be filled in.
Once they are familiarised with it will be, & probably is, a straightforward procedure.
If it really were 71 pages of filled in forms, large teams of new employees would be required to read them on the other side.
Once they are familiarised with it will be, & probably is, a straightforward procedure.
If it really were 71 pages of filled in forms, large teams of new employees would be required to read them on the other side.
It is not true that the EEA members are ruled by the EU and your insistence that they are is further evidence of your unwillingness to accept that reality is more complicated than you portray it. You acknowledge that they are not in CAP or CFP - which were allegedly two of the big reasons for wanting to leave. They also have an independent trade policy (another supposed argument for Brexit here), they choose to be members of Schengen and despite very little popular support for EU membership in Norway the public are overwhelmingly happy with their existing arrangements - clearly they perceive them as being different things. So indeed do many Brexiters who DO support the "Norway model" while also believing we should leave the EU (including at one point Farage but also plenty of others). The fact of the matter is that there is more to Brexit than just "in" or "out" and there were in-between options... it is not at all like being "slightly pregnant." Brexiters who insist that these things do not exist either do not understand the modern world or are lying about it.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.