Anybody Watching The New Matlock
Film, Media & TV4 mins 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.
"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 not the subject of the thread... but if you're asking, I think we should have remained because i think it was in our interests to do so... we will always need to do more trade with our closest neighbours than those which are further away because it is cheaper to do so. I also think that all trade agreements in the modern world come with political costs (if you understand what a non-tariff barrier is then this is impossible to deny) and that the ones we paid for trading with our neighbours were worth it.
the reason I entered the thread was to say that the reality of sovereignty is more complicated than Brexiters pretend it is, and that there are de jure as well as de facto encroachments on our sovereignty that we all accept as part of the modern world... and that there were far more sensible and moderate forms of Brexit available that would have eliminated the vast majority of what Brexiters pretended to care about, but they weren't enough because they didn't limit immigration, which is the true issue for most.
That was not the subject of the thread... but if you're asking, I think we should have remained because i think it was in our interests to do so... we will always need to do more trade with our closest neighbours than those which are further away because it is cheaper to do so. I also think that all trade agreements in the modern world come with political costs (if you understand what a non-tariff barrier is then this is impossible to deny) and that the ones we paid for trading with our neighbours were worth it.
the reason I entered the thread was to say that the reality of sovereignty is more complicated than Brexiters pretend it is, and that there are de jure as well as de facto encroachments on our sovereignty that we all accept as part of the modern world... and that there were far more sensible and moderate forms of Brexit available that would have eliminated the vast majority of what Brexiters pretended to care about, but they weren't enough because they didn't limit immigration, which is the true issue for most.
untitled: Unless you are a subscriber to the London Review of Books you will only be able to read one article per month (I think). If you would really like to understand what the EU has become since the UK joined (& many Brexiteers would happily return to those original conditions ) Changes which have been relentlessly & incrementally instigated by the ECJ, then I suggest you read this, the first article rather than the previous one I gave the link to;
https:/
https:/
A brilliant piece Khandro, as I read it I realised that if this had been proposed openly, and honestly, the EUSSR could not have come into being. As ever, at the centre of the web of deceit and dishonesty squat the lawyers and judicial officials. These are the people who have called "us" Fascists and Nazis over the decades when we have asked for explanations or justifications, or not shown the appropriate support for their evil works. We may have got out by the skin of our teeth, it will not be long before the generations that were taught rational thought and coached in comprehension in our schools have passed. Our younger citizens have been brainwashed and coerced into accepting this as the only social path and would never have been able to extricate themselves without real bloodshed without us. This jumped of the pages for me. The sight has been saved and the article passed on.
// just as it had no compunction in interpreting the Treaty of Rome to arrogate powers to itself of which no trace can be found in the document signed by the Six, so the ECJ had none in deciding that Lisbon meant the opposite of what it said. Since it was now a question not of reading into a treaty what it did not contain, but of purging one of what it did contain,//
// just as it had no compunction in interpreting the Treaty of Rome to arrogate powers to itself of which no trace can be found in the document signed by the Six, so the ECJ had none in deciding that Lisbon meant the opposite of what it said. Since it was now a question not of reading into a treaty what it did not contain, but of purging one of what it did contain,//
I re-read the last third of it to make sure I had it fairly clear in my head. The final paragraph is very perceptive. Project fear indeed.
"" If the Union’s advertisements for itself, on which it spends a fortune in euros every year, meet no more than a listless acquiescence, rather than active endorsement from the populations over which it presides, that is sufficient for its purposes. Fear of the unknown is the more important integument.""
"" If the Union’s advertisements for itself, on which it spends a fortune in euros every year, meet no more than a listless acquiescence, rather than active endorsement from the populations over which it presides, that is sufficient for its purposes. Fear of the unknown is the more important integument.""
untitled: ".. and that there were far more sensible and moderate forms of Brexit available that would have eliminated the vast majority of what Brexiters pretended to care about," - yes Cameron went to the EUSSR before the referendum to try and get a "sensible" agreement and was shown the door. The EUSSR are interested in a USE, full stop.
"..but they weren't enough because they didn't limit immigration, which is the true issue for most. " - I have never heard any brexiteer even mention immigration in the context of the referendum, before during or after the referendum. Remoaners however are the ones that seem to be obsessed with it. Immigration was not on my own list of reasons for wanting out.
"..but they weren't enough because they didn't limit immigration, which is the true issue for most. " - I have never heard any brexiteer even mention immigration in the context of the referendum, before during or after the referendum. Remoaners however are the ones that seem to be obsessed with it. Immigration was not on my own list of reasons for wanting out.
Trouble is the Brexiteers who voted to keep immigrants out of the UK , didnt realise how much the NHS depended on immigration to run the the NHS , and also do the jobs in the UK that the Brits will not do . Immigrants are still reaching the shores of the UK , but these are the wrong sort of immigrants . Thats why the UK and the NHS are deteriorating
//didnt realise how much the NHS depended on immigration to run the the NHS , and also do the jobs in the UK that the Brits will not do//
They would if they were paid a fair amount. The pay is artificially lower than it should be, because you can get cheaper labour elsewhere. And not always the best quality.
They would if they were paid a fair amount. The pay is artificially lower than it should be, because you can get cheaper labour elsewhere. And not always the best quality.
//That was not the subject of the thread...//
It certainly was (in my mind, anyway). “71 pages of paperwork for one lorry of fish”. In other words, if we hadn’t left we would not have had to go to the trouble.
// I also think that all trade agreements in the modern world come with political costs (if you understand what a non-tariff barrier is then this is impossible to deny) and that the ones we paid for trading with our neighbours were worth it.//
Of course they do. But if you can point out to me any other trading arrangement, between any two nations or blocs (excluding the EU) which requires one party to agree to legislation on employment, the environment, taxation and currency, and which requires freedom of movement of people between the two parties I’d agree that our relationship with the EU was no different to any other trading relationship. I think you’ll struggle because the EU is a political construct like no other, and certainly far more than a trading arrangement.
// For most of the people who wanted Brexit it was about immigration first and foremost" . Untitled you are spot on.//
No, Untitled is not spot on. For many people, if immigration was a consideration at all, it was about uncontrollable immigration. It was about the fact the the UK could not choose who settled and worked here and who did not. Now it can and there is no need for the NHS to be short of staff (so long as it thinks it is morally acceptable to poach medical staff from poorer countries who may have funded their education and training, that is). In any case, as I’ve already said, so what if it was? So what if the electorate did not like the idea of 450m people having an unalienable right to settle here? If leaving the EU was the only way to end that principle (and it certainly was), why do you blame people for voting to leave? Do you think it’s acceptable that settlement in the UK should be open to six or seven times the population that already live here?
It certainly was (in my mind, anyway). “71 pages of paperwork for one lorry of fish”. In other words, if we hadn’t left we would not have had to go to the trouble.
// I also think that all trade agreements in the modern world come with political costs (if you understand what a non-tariff barrier is then this is impossible to deny) and that the ones we paid for trading with our neighbours were worth it.//
Of course they do. But if you can point out to me any other trading arrangement, between any two nations or blocs (excluding the EU) which requires one party to agree to legislation on employment, the environment, taxation and currency, and which requires freedom of movement of people between the two parties I’d agree that our relationship with the EU was no different to any other trading relationship. I think you’ll struggle because the EU is a political construct like no other, and certainly far more than a trading arrangement.
// For most of the people who wanted Brexit it was about immigration first and foremost" . Untitled you are spot on.//
No, Untitled is not spot on. For many people, if immigration was a consideration at all, it was about uncontrollable immigration. It was about the fact the the UK could not choose who settled and worked here and who did not. Now it can and there is no need for the NHS to be short of staff (so long as it thinks it is morally acceptable to poach medical staff from poorer countries who may have funded their education and training, that is). In any case, as I’ve already said, so what if it was? So what if the electorate did not like the idea of 450m people having an unalienable right to settle here? If leaving the EU was the only way to end that principle (and it certainly was), why do you blame people for voting to leave? Do you think it’s acceptable that settlement in the UK should be open to six or seven times the population that already live here?
"which requires one party to agree to legislation on employment, the environment, taxation and currency, and which requires freedom of movement of people between the two parties"
Virtually all modern trade deals require their participants to cut non-tariff barriers, many of which are a matter of domestic policy: state subsidies, sanitary regulations, rules of origin, policies on government procurement, etc. These are not "sexy" or exciting and they are not things that Brexiters care about... you are right however in that the EU is unique in requiring free movement between its members... and that's really what the issue was. I sincerely doubt anybody except a small fraction of hardliners would have given a tinker's cuss about Brexit without that.
Virtually all modern trade deals require their participants to cut non-tariff barriers, many of which are a matter of domestic policy: state subsidies, sanitary regulations, rules of origin, policies on government procurement, etc. These are not "sexy" or exciting and they are not things that Brexiters care about... you are right however in that the EU is unique in requiring free movement between its members... and that's really what the issue was. I sincerely doubt anybody except a small fraction of hardliners would have given a tinker's cuss about Brexit without that.
But in the end common sense & business interests will prevail, & we're only 8 weeks in:
https:/
https:/
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
Starmer Continues With "Grossly...
News9 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.