Brexit Penny Dropping?

[woolley]

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Why do you Remainers have to make stuff up to try and justify your position?

Because after the sky not falling in, and the world not ending, it's all they have left.

[P.K.]

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Why do you Remainers have to make stuff up to try and justify your position?

Sorry but we left all the lying about brexit to Messrs Farage, Gove, Johnson and the UK right wing press in thrall to the agenda of the owner, which is to say pretty much all of it. What a fine job they made of it as well...!

We just stick to the facts. Like the UK had the best deal in the best trading bloc on the planet. Which was why the UK was doing very nicely thank you very much indeedy. Now all pissed away by a mixture of the gullible, the racists, the tiny minded Little Englanders and those paranoid about soundbites like "ever closer union" and so forth like they can read the future or something. Naturally they ignore the fact that had the EU tried to push through anything totally unacceptable to the UK then that would be the time to invoke Article 50.

But oh no, we were doing so nicely we just had to leave...

[woolley]

9 minutes ago, P.K. said:

We just stick to the facts. Like the UK had the best deal in the best trading bloc on the planet. Which was why the UK was doing very nicely thank you very much indeedy.

That'd be why our trade balance with the EU was getting steadily worse all the time then. It still is, but both exports and imports have continued to increase. Leaving the EU was not about trade, but you are seriously misrepresenting the trading position. You definitely do not stick to facts.

[The Voice of Reason]

4 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

I thought you read the Guardian?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/09/not-a-sausage-how-latest-post-brexit-checks-have-hit-uk-delis 

Are you sure you are not PK?

Anyway yes I read the Guardian. It’s free. But I’m not naive enough to think it doesn’t select these stories  ( and give them the appropriate emphasis and interpretations ) that support its own anti Brexit agenda. 
 

And I read the Telegraph. That’s also free for me to read ( for reasons previously given). Again I’m not oblivious to the fact that they will choose certain stories ( and give them the spin) that reinforces their position on Brexit. 

Both can be disingenuous in their reporting of facts, giving their own one sided bias, without telling untruths. It’s part of the dark arts of journalism.

And of course these articles tend to focus on economic issues and  “facts” whereas Brexit is about so much more than that. Principles like sovereignty 

You have to try and see through all the paper talk and reach your own conclusions without just blindly accepting one particular view as being the “correct” view, as one particular contributor on here unfortunately does. 
 

 

 

[manxman1980]

@The Voice of Reason small specialist businesses are struggling since these new rules were introduced.  Doesn't matter which newspaper you read.

If you are happy with mass produced supermarket products then that's fine.

More specialist foodstuff is harder to source now.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

@The Voice of Reason small specialist businesses are struggling since these new rules were introduced.  Doesn't matter which newspaper you read.

If you are happy with mass produced supermarket products then that's fine.

More specialist foodstuff is harder to source now.

 

I’ve done a little research into this. The new rules of which you write are part of the UK Border Target  Operating Model.

This is being introduced to reduce or mitigate biosecurity risk, which I’m sure you will agree is a good thing.

As new rules are introduced to protect or enhance consumer welfare, inevitably there will be negative consequences for those currently operating to existing lower standards.

This is obviously not good news for those delicatessens catering to the Guardian reading chattering classes but such is the way of social progress. ( No doubt those using children to go up chimneys were hit hard in the pocket when that was outlawed.) But no doubt they can, and will, adapt if they want to survive.
 

Changes inevitably bring challenges.

 

 

 

Edited March 10 by The Voice of Reason

[P.K.]

24 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

This is obviously not good news for those delicatessens catering to the Guardian reading chattering classes but such is the way of social progress. ( No doubt those using children to go up chimneys were hit hard in the pocket when that was outlawed.) But no doubt they can, and will, adapt if they want to survive.

To which, by your own admission, you belong.

Edited March 10 by P.K.

[P.K.]

6 hours ago, woolley said:

That'd be why our trade balance with the EU was getting steadily worse all the time then. It still is, but both exports and imports have continued to increase. Leaving the EU was not about trade, but you are seriously misrepresenting the trading position. You definitely do not stick to facts.

@woolley

So forcing "Third Country trading status" on the UK is somehow going to improve our position vis-a-vis our biggest trading partner...

Care to explain how that works?

Edited March 10 by P.K.

[manxman1980]

58 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

I’ve done a little research into this. The new rules of which you write are part of the UK Border Target  Operating Model.

This is being introduced to reduce or mitigate biosecurity risk

 

So, how does the trade deal with Australia fit with this approach?  If I recall correctly Australia allows the use of hormones in producing beef.  Something the UK hasn't allowed on health grounds.

It just seems rather inconsistent and something that hampers small businesses.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

29 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

So, how does the trade deal with Australia fit with this approach?  If I recall correctly Australia allows the use of hormones in producing beef.  Something the UK hasn't allowed on health grounds.

It just seems rather inconsistent and something that hampers small businesses.

 

Re hampering small businesses. From the Guardian itself:-

“The catchily named [UK] border target operating model (BTOM) will look to mirror the controls the EU has for UK companies trying to export to mainland Europe.”

What is sauce for the goose etc

[P.K.]

28 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Re hampering small businesses. From the Guardian itself:-

“The catchily named [UK] border target operating model (BTOM) will look to mirror the controls the EU has for UK companies trying to export to mainland Europe.”

What is sauce for the goose etc

Another self-inflicted economic penalty from the worst government in living memory and probably forever...

[manxman1980]

35 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Re hampering small businesses. From the Guardian itself:-

“The catchily named [UK] border target operating model (BTOM) will look to mirror the controls the EU has for UK companies trying to export to mainland Europe.”

What is sauce for the goose etc

Hang on...

 

You said

2 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

This is being introduced to reduce or mitigate biosecurity risk, which I’m sure you will agree is a good thing.

As new rules are introduced to protect or enhance consumer welfare, inevitably there will be negative consequences for those currently operating to existing lower standards

So if the same rules apply in the EU how is the UK model better and why is it causing more problems with paperwork? 

And to add another question,  why is any of this better for the UK?

[The Voice of Reason]

39 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

Hang on...

 

You said

So if the same rules apply in the EU how is the UK model better and why is it causing more problems with paperwork? 

And to add another question,  why is any of this better for the UK?

This may help.

“What are sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) controls?

“SPS controls are import rules that are applied at the point of importation in order to protect the internal market from biosecurity risks.

Prior to Brexit, as a member of the EU the UK was bound by EU legislation to share and enforce the EU’s biosecurity regime. This meant that imports of products of animal origin (POAO) needed to undergo documentary, identification, and physical checks in order to be allowed to enter free circulation in the EU from third countries (those outside the single market).

Since leaving the EU, the UK is free to design its own biosecurity and border regime and create its own risk framework. “
 

Now that's not to say the EU doesn’t have good regulatory safeguards similar to the ones the UK would introduce for itself. To return to a recurrent theme it was the fact that the EU law had supremacy over UK law that led to Brexit, not that all  EU laws were inherently bad laws.

As it states above the UK is now free to design its own regime in respect of biosecurity and much else. In this case the UK model may be no “better” than the EU one but the model had to be designed following Brexit and the change of circumstance  that bought. As such new administrative practices have to be implemented which require different paperwork which may account for the “ problems” you refer to above. It will settle down.

We have to stop harking back to the days when the UK was part of the EU . The UK left the EU years ago by public mandate. 

Things have moved on. There are those that still bemoan the decimalisation of the  UK currency ( including myself) but it does no good to live in the past however misguidedly you see it as a golden era

[alpha-acid]

23 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

This may help.

“What are sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) controls?

“SPS controls are import rules that are applied at the point of importation in order to protect the internal market from biosecurity risks.

Prior to Brexit, as a member of the EU the UK was bound by EU legislation to share and enforce the EU’s biosecurity regime. This meant that imports of products of animal origin (POAO) needed to undergo documentary, identification, and physical checks in order to be allowed to enter free circulation in the EU from third countries (those outside the single market).

Since leaving the EU, the UK is free to design its own biosecurity and border regime and create its own risk framework. “
 

Now that's not to say the EU doesn’t have good regulatory safeguards similar to the ones the UK would introduce for itself. To return to a recurrent theme it was the fact that the EU law had supremacy over UK law that led to Brexit, not that all  EU laws were inherently bad laws.

As it states above the UK is now free to design its own regime in respect of biosecurity and much else. In this case the UK model may be no “better” than the EU one but the model had to be designed following Brexit and the change of circumstance  that bought. As such new administrative practices have to be implemented which require different paperwork which may account for the “ problems” you refer to above. It will settle down.

We have to stop harking back to the days when the UK was part of the EU . The UK left the EU years ago by public mandate. 

Things have moved on. There are those that still bemoan the decimalisation of the  UK currency ( including myself) but it does no good to live in the past however misguidedly you see it as a golden era

But that is exactly what you are doing, going back to Imperial Britain

[woolley]

3 hours ago, P.K. said:

@woolley

So forcing "Third Country trading status" on the UK is somehow going to improve our position vis-a-vis our biggest trading partner...

Care to explain how that works?

It's years ago now, PK. You really need to stop thinking in EU jargon such as third country trading status. Trade has continued to grow throughout, apart from during the pandemic when the world closed down.