It Appears That Ms Harris Is The Better...
News1 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.
"who wants to see his nation’s affairs determined by its own Parliament without having to seek confimation of its decisions from a supranational, unelected clique"
do you object to the WTO imposing rules or rulings on the UK? do you object to political influence from NATO on our defence spending? do you object to any trading partners whatsoever setting conditions that we change our policies e.g. subsidies for agriculture or business? I doubt that you do... if you do then you are a member of a very very small section of the UK population. It's clearly not enough for us to have an independent trade policy or opt out of CAP/CFP because we could have done that through EFTA/EEA.
Unless you really do object to all those things (and I'm not sure I'll believe you if you say you do) then the "sovereignty" argument really doesn't hold water... For most of the people who wanted brexit it was about immigration first and foremost.
do you object to the WTO imposing rules or rulings on the UK? do you object to political influence from NATO on our defence spending? do you object to any trading partners whatsoever setting conditions that we change our policies e.g. subsidies for agriculture or business? I doubt that you do... if you do then you are a member of a very very small section of the UK population. It's clearly not enough for us to have an independent trade policy or opt out of CAP/CFP because we could have done that through EFTA/EEA.
Unless you really do object to all those things (and I'm not sure I'll believe you if you say you do) then the "sovereignty" argument really doesn't hold water... For most of the people who wanted brexit it was about immigration first and foremost.
we do have to abide by WTO rulings TTT (unless we leave that too). Brexiters don't seem very concerned about that. NATO's influence on our defense policy is huge, although it is not codified in law as far as I am aware - nonetheless it is a big foreign influence by a body that is unelected. We do have a choice about whether we enter into trade deals with conditions we don't like I agree. But there's no such thing as the perfect deal. All of them will come with some conditions about policy.
//…do you object to the WTO imposing rules or rulings on the UK? do you object to political influence from NATO on our defence spending? do you object to any trading partners whatsoever setting conditions that we change our policies e.g. subsidies for agriculture or business? I doubt that you do.//
No I don’t. But the decision whether we comply with those rules is within the remit of the UK government. If we want the protection that NATO membership provides we must pay for it; the WTO imposes a set of rules to enable fair trading between those who agree to comply with its rules. I don’t know of any trading partners setting conditions that we change the policies you mention but if they do we can either accept or decline their trade. We had no such choices whilst EU members.
I think you need to separate the issue of our future trading relationship with the EU from our leaving it. We have left. As a non-member we have negotiated a trading arrangement with them. It’s not perfect but it will evolve. Lots of countries trade with the EU. Some have trade deals with it, others have not, but they all manage to trade without the sort of political interference that membership entails.
The areas where the EU has been taking greater and greater powers have increased considerably over the past couple of decades. Any nation that signs up to an agreement which says that the legislation of a supranational organisation trumps that of a sovereign state – especially when that organisation is assuming powers in more and more areas - is no longer sovereign. We’ll never agree because the fundamental difference between us is that you don’t mind that situation prevailing and I do. Fortunately I was not alone.
No I don’t. But the decision whether we comply with those rules is within the remit of the UK government. If we want the protection that NATO membership provides we must pay for it; the WTO imposes a set of rules to enable fair trading between those who agree to comply with its rules. I don’t know of any trading partners setting conditions that we change the policies you mention but if they do we can either accept or decline their trade. We had no such choices whilst EU members.
I think you need to separate the issue of our future trading relationship with the EU from our leaving it. We have left. As a non-member we have negotiated a trading arrangement with them. It’s not perfect but it will evolve. Lots of countries trade with the EU. Some have trade deals with it, others have not, but they all manage to trade without the sort of political interference that membership entails.
The areas where the EU has been taking greater and greater powers have increased considerably over the past couple of decades. Any nation that signs up to an agreement which says that the legislation of a supranational organisation trumps that of a sovereign state – especially when that organisation is assuming powers in more and more areas - is no longer sovereign. We’ll never agree because the fundamental difference between us is that you don’t mind that situation prevailing and I do. Fortunately I was not alone.
//we do have to abide by WTO rulings//
Why would you try to misrepresent the WTO? They do not do "rulings". We know that you have fallen in love with such mechanisms after 40 years of EUSSR directives and prefer them to having to think for yourself or to make plans. Or do you profit personally by offering them compliance with a promise to further the cause?
This is part of the WTO opening introduction from their website.
"" There are a number of ways of looking at the World Trade Organization. It is an organization for trade opening. It is a forum for governments to negotiate trade agreements. It is a place for them to settle trade disputes. It operates a system of trade rules. Essentially, the WTO is a place where member governments try to sort out the trade problems they face with each other.""
The EUSSR avoids the WTO like the plague.
https:/
Why would you try to misrepresent the WTO? They do not do "rulings". We know that you have fallen in love with such mechanisms after 40 years of EUSSR directives and prefer them to having to think for yourself or to make plans. Or do you profit personally by offering them compliance with a promise to further the cause?
This is part of the WTO opening introduction from their website.
"" There are a number of ways of looking at the World Trade Organization. It is an organization for trade opening. It is a forum for governments to negotiate trade agreements. It is a place for them to settle trade disputes. It operates a system of trade rules. Essentially, the WTO is a place where member governments try to sort out the trade problems they face with each other.""
The EUSSR avoids the WTO like the plague.
https:/
Do we not have to abide by WTO rules?
Does NATO not exercise powerful influence over UK policy?
Is there such a thing as a perfect trade deal which will require no policy changes from us at all?
All of these things do interfere with our sovereignty as defined by brexiters... they involve the decisionmaking power of our own parliament and government being diminished either de jure or de facto. Im ok with that. It is how the world works and on balance these things are probably more in our interests than the alternative. Are you ok with it too?
Does NATO not exercise powerful influence over UK policy?
Is there such a thing as a perfect trade deal which will require no policy changes from us at all?
All of these things do interfere with our sovereignty as defined by brexiters... they involve the decisionmaking power of our own parliament and government being diminished either de jure or de facto. Im ok with that. It is how the world works and on balance these things are probably more in our interests than the alternative. Are you ok with it too?
The point is that the WTO sets rules which its member states mist abide by or face economic sanctions... those rules are made by the WTO. This is not a criticism of the WTO but I do find it interesting that people who get angry about “unelected foreigners” making decisions for us don’t care. I think the reason for that is that the WTO does not affect the thing that Brexists really care about... immigration. The “sovereignty” argument has always been a red herring.
You are not listening again are you? Do yourself a favour and read some of the bullet points from the link you have been given. You will find this in there.
""The WTO is run by its member governments. All major decisions are made by the membership as a whole, either by ministers (who usually meet at least once every two years) or by their ambassadors or delegates (who meet regularly in Geneva)""
Do I need to provide more of the same, or have you yet realised that when the WTO make decisions or sets procedures that we have a Government representative there. That was never the case with the EUSSR. A "framework" would be openly discussed, then behind closed doors unelected officials would alter it beyond recognition for the set of rules that were set in stone. 71 pages of it apparently for a wagon load of fish. Now if you like I will disavow you of your warped views on NATO. The facts and information that you lack are readily available on line for that organisation too. You would do well to cease being so needy and entitled in your views and to accept that we are out. But not yet far enough out in my opinion. :))
""The WTO is run by its member governments. All major decisions are made by the membership as a whole, either by ministers (who usually meet at least once every two years) or by their ambassadors or delegates (who meet regularly in Geneva)""
Do I need to provide more of the same, or have you yet realised that when the WTO make decisions or sets procedures that we have a Government representative there. That was never the case with the EUSSR. A "framework" would be openly discussed, then behind closed doors unelected officials would alter it beyond recognition for the set of rules that were set in stone. 71 pages of it apparently for a wagon load of fish. Now if you like I will disavow you of your warped views on NATO. The facts and information that you lack are readily available on line for that organisation too. You would do well to cease being so needy and entitled in your views and to accept that we are out. But not yet far enough out in my opinion. :))
"That was never the case with the EUSSR."
Yes we did... Council of Ministers, European Council...
I am not trying to suggest that the WTO is equivalent to the EU... but we are not 100% sovereign if we are in it because we are obliged to obey its rulings. That doesn't bother people who made the sovereignty argument for Brexit which I think is rather odd.
I do accept that we are out. Never said otherwise... what a bunch of sore winners you lot seem to be!
Yes we did... Council of Ministers, European Council...
I am not trying to suggest that the WTO is equivalent to the EU... but we are not 100% sovereign if we are in it because we are obliged to obey its rulings. That doesn't bother people who made the sovereignty argument for Brexit which I think is rather odd.
I do accept that we are out. Never said otherwise... what a bunch of sore winners you lot seem to be!
I think if you are seeking to conflate the EU with NATO and the WTO you are on a hiding to nothing. The EU is a protectionist bloc. It has no interest in free trade, only in protecting its members from what it terms “unfair competition” (which, loosely, is anything its members cannot compete with). That is bad enough. But there is no doubt (and there’s ample evidence which I cannot be bothered to find yet again) that its ambitions go far beyond trade and many of its ambitions are unpalatable to UK citizens.
//It's clearly not enough for us to have an independent trade policy or opt out of CAP/CFP because we could have done that through EFTA/EEA.//
No it’s clearly not enough and I’m glad you understand that. The idea of Brexit was to remove the country from the influence of the EU. The UK never really bought into the EU and in fact our leaving has done them as much of a favour as it has us. We were troublesome; we did not conform; we didn’t fit. The EFTA and the EEA, as I’ve said, are nothing more than “EU-Lite”. We would not have fitted into them either (as non-EU members) and there was absolutely no point in pursuing that course.
//For most of the people who wanted brexit it was about immigration first and foremost.//
It wasn’t for me but I accept that for some people it was. So what? Our membership of the EU meant that 450m people had the unchallengeable right to live and work here. Why should any country be in that position? And for that matter, why should any country's government sign up to a treaty which permits that? That on its own is utter lunacy.
//It's clearly not enough for us to have an independent trade policy or opt out of CAP/CFP because we could have done that through EFTA/EEA.//
No it’s clearly not enough and I’m glad you understand that. The idea of Brexit was to remove the country from the influence of the EU. The UK never really bought into the EU and in fact our leaving has done them as much of a favour as it has us. We were troublesome; we did not conform; we didn’t fit. The EFTA and the EEA, as I’ve said, are nothing more than “EU-Lite”. We would not have fitted into them either (as non-EU members) and there was absolutely no point in pursuing that course.
//For most of the people who wanted brexit it was about immigration first and foremost.//
It wasn’t for me but I accept that for some people it was. So what? Our membership of the EU meant that 450m people had the unchallengeable right to live and work here. Why should any country be in that position? And for that matter, why should any country's government sign up to a treaty which permits that? That on its own is utter lunacy.
The 71 pages of 'paperwork' sink into oblivion when compared to the aquis communitaire better known as the EU rulebook which all aspirants for membership must adhere to (please take note Nicola) began in 1973 with 2,800 pages & is now 90,000 !! 'The longest & most formidable written document of bureaucratic expansion in human history'.
Fanny, you are the most shellfish person on this site.
Before your tear drenched pleas for sympathy at the prospect of you losing your job did you ever spare a passing thought for the millions upon millions of, mainly working class, jobs that were exported lock, stock & barrel to low wage economies in the beloved EU.
Or later, when they could no longer winkle out exportable jobs, they just imported millions of 'units' from low wage economies to undercut the 'fabulously highly paid' working classes further.
Those they didn't displace had their wages and conditions of work ruined.
Of course, I realise mentioning such facts makes me a bigot, a fascist and even a racist in the eyes of those ABers who were l̶a̶z̶y̶ ̶e̶n̶o̶u̶g̶h̶, sorry, lucky enough to be in Government non-jobs and sailed through it all, as per, oblivious and unaffected.
Before your tear drenched pleas for sympathy at the prospect of you losing your job did you ever spare a passing thought for the millions upon millions of, mainly working class, jobs that were exported lock, stock & barrel to low wage economies in the beloved EU.
Or later, when they could no longer winkle out exportable jobs, they just imported millions of 'units' from low wage economies to undercut the 'fabulously highly paid' working classes further.
Those they didn't displace had their wages and conditions of work ruined.
Of course, I realise mentioning such facts makes me a bigot, a fascist and even a racist in the eyes of those ABers who were l̶a̶z̶y̶ ̶e̶n̶o̶u̶g̶h̶, sorry, lucky enough to be in Government non-jobs and sailed through it all, as per, oblivious and unaffected.
//Why is the "influence" of the EU a problem but the "influence" of the USA not?//
- Because we don't have to abide by US legislation unless we choose to.
- Because we don't have pay the US £10bn a year to trade "freely" with them.
- Because we are not dragged before a court, set up and administered by the US, in the event of disputes between us.
- Because the US does not attempt to impose fiscal, social and employment laws upon us in order to trade freely.
- Because the 330m US citizens do not have the unalienable right to travel to, live and work in the UK.
Will that do for starters? As I said, we will not agree. I've told you my reasons why I voted to leave and expanded fully on most of them. I haven't heard much from you about why we should have remained, only why we should not have left (which is slightly different). That was the thrust of many Remainers' arguments for remaining - not that there is an overwhelmingly convincing argument to remain but that leaving would be tricky. In fact this very question is a case in point: "we should not have left because we will have to fill in some forms and it will cause some inconvenience." Yes it will. Nobody who has thought about it properly believed it wouldn't and to bleat, just two months after we had properly left, that there are problems is simply daft. You cannot undo four decades of political entwinement in a couple of months. That is especially so when the EU, quite clearly, is making our leaving as cumbersome as possible so as to discourage anybody else from doing so.
Perhaps you should ask yourself this: if the UK had never been a member of the EU, do you think there would be any significant clamour for us to join now? The countries which have joined in the last twenty years have been economic basket cases, mainly those from the former Soviet Union, who have escaped from the frying pan only to fall into the fire. Four of the five current candidates (Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia) are similarly endowed. The fifth (Turkey) has been an official candidate for over thirty years and is probably unlikely ever to join (though who really knows?). There is absolutely nothing in it for the mainstream members in these candidates joining. They will be net recipients of EU largesse and that bill will be met by the remaining four principle net contributors. (Actually this could be five, or six, depending on which figures you believe - the EU accounts have never been properly audited so nobody really knows). Do you really think the UK would be clamouring to join the journey which would see us dishing out huge sums of money to countries like that?
- Because we don't have to abide by US legislation unless we choose to.
- Because we don't have pay the US £10bn a year to trade "freely" with them.
- Because we are not dragged before a court, set up and administered by the US, in the event of disputes between us.
- Because the US does not attempt to impose fiscal, social and employment laws upon us in order to trade freely.
- Because the 330m US citizens do not have the unalienable right to travel to, live and work in the UK.
Will that do for starters? As I said, we will not agree. I've told you my reasons why I voted to leave and expanded fully on most of them. I haven't heard much from you about why we should have remained, only why we should not have left (which is slightly different). That was the thrust of many Remainers' arguments for remaining - not that there is an overwhelmingly convincing argument to remain but that leaving would be tricky. In fact this very question is a case in point: "we should not have left because we will have to fill in some forms and it will cause some inconvenience." Yes it will. Nobody who has thought about it properly believed it wouldn't and to bleat, just two months after we had properly left, that there are problems is simply daft. You cannot undo four decades of political entwinement in a couple of months. That is especially so when the EU, quite clearly, is making our leaving as cumbersome as possible so as to discourage anybody else from doing so.
Perhaps you should ask yourself this: if the UK had never been a member of the EU, do you think there would be any significant clamour for us to join now? The countries which have joined in the last twenty years have been economic basket cases, mainly those from the former Soviet Union, who have escaped from the frying pan only to fall into the fire. Four of the five current candidates (Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia) are similarly endowed. The fifth (Turkey) has been an official candidate for over thirty years and is probably unlikely ever to join (though who really knows?). There is absolutely nothing in it for the mainstream members in these candidates joining. They will be net recipients of EU largesse and that bill will be met by the remaining four principle net contributors. (Actually this could be five, or six, depending on which figures you believe - the EU accounts have never been properly audited so nobody really knows). Do you really think the UK would be clamouring to join the journey which would see us dishing out huge sums of money to countries like that?
If you have the time & inclination, this is just one of 3 recent lengthy articles about the EU by Perry Anderson published in the LRB highlighting what it is the UK is leaving;
https:/
https:/
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Crosswords12 mins ago
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.