Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Options
1…318319320321323

Comments

  • Options
    #9662
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,553 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Del


  • Options
    #9663
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,163 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    I am not seeing that the discussion is irrelevant to Brexit, it is (very generally) the basis of their argument. Your saying that we should 'leave it' because you cannot come up with a reasonable argument is not a good reason to drop it. So far you have only given ominous opinions on what you think will happen, you do not seem to be able to support them with anything other than gut feelings.

    For example
    Symbolism matters - and it's only a matter of time until our, and everyone else's, diplomatic core is disbanded. Right? Brussels will conduct foreign policy.
    you state this as some sort of fact, what is your reasoning?


  • Options
    #9664
    sondagefaux
    Registered Users Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    Some reasonably positive Brexit news from the UK point of view.

    Nissan to keep Sunderland open.

    "Brexit has given competitive edge on car battery tariffs, says Nissan chief"
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/22/brexit-has-given-competitive-edge-on-car-battery-tariffs-says-nissan-chief
    "Ashwani Gupta, Nissan’s chief operating officer, said: “Brexit gives us the competitive advantage not only within the United Kingdom but outside the United Kingdom also.”
    Speaking from Nissan’s Yokohama headquarters, Gupta said the Brexit deal had turned out to be positive for the carmaker."
    ….
    "The comments mark an abrupt change in tone from Nissan, which along with the rest of the car industry has previously been one of the loudest voices warning against a disruptive Brexit."


    ******
    Ultimately its a 'Factory doesn't shut' story which of itself isn't something to shout about, but the Nissan/Sunderland thing was for a long while a stick used to beat the North-East working-class Brexiteers with.

    These positives that Nissan sees aren't all they're cracked up to be.

    For starters, the provisions on rules of origin for electric cars and their batteries in the trade agreement are in force until 2026:
    Specific rules of origin are provided for in the case of many products and a number of novel requirements are introduced. For example, in relation to electrified vehicles and batteries, there are more lenient transitional rules that apply until the end of 2026.

    https://www.allenovery.com/en-gb/global/news-and-insights/publications/brexit-certainty-at-last-an-overview-of-the-new-eu-uk-trading-relationship

    After then, more strict rules of origin apply.

    Secondly, and more importantly, Electric Vehicles receive and send tons of data, including data that's covered by EU data protection law.

    The flow of data from the EU to the UK is still to be decided on by the EU which will make a unilateral decision, an adequacy decision, on whether UK data protection law is adequate to protect the data of EU citizens.

    The UK's implementation of EU data protection law was ruled to be illegal by the CJEU when the UK was a member, and there are aspects of UK data law that the CJEU would find incompatible with EU citizens' data protection rights if the EU Commission was to grant an adequacy decision now.

    Data protection law is one area where the UK wants to diverge from the EU. Unless it rows back from that, it's hard to see the Commission making a positive adequacy decision.

    Even if does, the decision is likely to be challenged by data rights campaigners like Max Schrems who has twice won cases at the CJEU in relation to the EU's deals with the USA on data transfers.

    The reality is that many machines these days, and more so in the future, are also data devices and therefore those on the EU market are subject to EU data protection law.


  • Options
    #9665
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,167 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    I said to leave it. Others want to continue(don't blame me for taking the thread off course)

    All I will say is that the seeds of war are sown in their posts. Brussels vs the Nation State. They will lose.

    Seriously, it's like throwing a bag of **** into someones hall and running away.

    This is a mind boggling post that makes no sense at all, explain and back it up? It is relevant to Brexit as you've been using this type of reasoning to justify why you think other countries may, or should, follow the UK in leaving the EU.


  • Options
    #9666
    sondagefaux
    Registered Users Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    Dear, oh dear. Farage's new party, Reform UK, still using the Brexit Party's URL, is charging would-be candidates an £80 fee.

    It's almost as if Farage sees Brexit and its aftermath as a money-making opportunity.

    EsRz15_XYAAdvw2.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9667
    tubercolossus
    Registered Users Posts: 155 ✭✭tubercolossus


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I'm afraid this makes no sense at all.

    First of all, let's clarify this term "nation state", which is being used very sloppily in this discussion.

    A "nation" is a community of people defined by, and distinguished from their neighbours by, shared language, culture, place, history, etc.

    A "state" (in this context) is a political structure through which a community of people is autonomously governed.

    A "nation state" is a state which serves a nation.

    From the 19th century onwards, the view has been widely held that a nation is the appropriate community to be governed by a state. The prevalence of this view led both to nations withdrawing from larger states in order to govern themselves through a nation state (e.g. Ireland, Poland, Hungary) and to nations consolidating multiple states which all serve the same nation into a single nation state (Italy, Germany in 1870 and again in 1990).

    Not all states are nation states. Austria before 1918 was not a nation state, for example. The USSR was not a nation state. The UK is, arguably, not a nation state.

    In the diplomatic context, whether a country is a nation state or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether it's sovereign. Scotland would be a good example of a nation that has its own particular governing structure. But it does not enjoy sovereignty so, even where the Scottish government does have representation abroad, that representation is not according diplomatic status. (Sometimes, it piggy-backs on UK diplomatic status, operating as an annex to or division of the UK embassy to the country concerned.)

    Right. So the real question is not "does the EU delegation represent a nation state?" but "does the EU delegation represent a sovereign entity?"

    The first point to note here is that, while sovereign entities are usually countries, they don't have to be. The Holy See, for example, is widely recognised as sovereign and its representatives are accorded diplomatic status (including by the UK) despite the fact that it has no territory and is not in any sense a country. (The Vatican City State has territory, and is a country, even if only a token one. But it's not the Vatican City State that sends and receives ambassadors; it's the Holy See.)

    The second point to note is that most other countries do treat the EU as a sovereign entity and accord its ambassador full diplomatic status. While the UK is entitled to make its own decision about this, it's making a pretty left-field decision. 143 countries exchange ambassadors with the EU; 142 of them accord the EU ambassador full diplomatic status.

    The third point to note is that, in the UK, certain Brexit supporters have spent much of the past three years insisting that the UK and the EU should deal as "sovereign equals" (and complaining that the EU was not doing this). You can't really take that position and then turn round and deny that the EU possesses sovereignty.

    The fourth point to note is that, again, Brexit supporters have campaigned on the basis that the UK needed to Brexit in order to recover its sovereignty, that EU member states have ceded their sovereignty to the Union, etc, etc. Again, you can't expect to be taken seriously if you argue that EU member states have ceded their sovereignty to the Union, yet the Union has no sovereignty.

    The deal here is that the EU regards itself not as an international organsation like, say, the World Bank or the Food and Agriculture Organisation or UNICEF, but as a "supranational entity". Member states do not cede their sovereignty to the Union; they pool their sovereignty in the Union and exercise it collectively through the Union. Thus the EU ambassador represents and acts on behalf of the member states, in relation to matters that are within the competence of the Union, in a way that the World Bank, FAO or UNICEF representatives do not represent or act on behalf of the member states of those organisations. Hence, they are sovereign representatives and should be treated as such.

    As noted, practically every country in the world accepts this. The UK is perfectly within its rights to take and act on the opposite view, but at the very least they should ask themselves whether it is wise, prudent, or to their own advantage to do so, and the answer certainly looks like "no, it isn't". Plus, if they are going to do this, they had better come up with a pretty solid rationale, since the decision will certainly be questioned and commented on.

    I've only seen two rationales offered so far, neither of which really cuts it. The first is "the EU is not a nation-state", which is (a) irrelevant, as already pointed out, and (b) foolish, since it's not difficult to make the case that the UK is also not a nation-state. The second is "it's amusing to wind up the EU/to wind up Remainers in the UK". It may be, but it would be a pretty damning indictment of the current British government if their policies and positions were motivated by a craving for amusement as opposed to, you know, a sober consideration of the UK's best interests and in particular of how it might pursue its stated desire to be treated by the EU as a sovereign equal.

    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Let's correct something here - it's the Brits describing the EU as sovereign - not the EU.

    They do this to make themselves look big and insult actual sovereign countries in the EU in some way implying we aren't sovereign.

    So your point falls away right there.

    The EU should not have ambassadors being treated as if they were ambassadors from Germany, Ireland or Portugal. The EU is not a country, sovereign state or nation state.

    The UK is absolutely correct to the letter and in reality.


    The first one is excellent, thanks for posting. And the fact that the it got 26 thanks and the second ZERO is telling.


  • Options
    #9668
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,579 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Ok, let's leave the debate on whether or not the EU is a country there please.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #9669
    yagan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,729 ✭✭✭yagan


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    I said to leave it. Others want to continue(don't blame me for taking the thread off course)

    All I will say is that the seeds of war are sown in their posts. Brussels vs the Nation State. They will lose.

    I truly hope we don't reach that point.

    That is all.
    If there is going to be any conflict the most likely arena will be Britain as the Brexit collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.

    Left and right Brexiters voted to get London back working for them, it's a refrain I heard constantly when I lived in England after the Brexit vote.

    The working class tolerate British ruling class Etonians out of tradition, but tradition won't stop you from starving, and hunger can beget revolution.


  • Options
    #9670
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,360 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    correct horse battery staple wrote: »
    https://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publish/nissan-sunderland-factory-future-is-safe-after-manufacturer-hails-brexit-deal-as-positive/214639

    This Nissan thing is hilarious in the amount of spin and fud, just like brexit


    some choice quotes

    EU deal that brexiteers didnt want...


    MAY consider


    production lines shut down completely but theres an EXPECTATION it would resume


    Seems someone is trying hard to spin what is a negative into a positive

    Just In Time.


  • Options
    #9671
    tubercolossus
    Registered Users Posts: 155 ✭✭tubercolossus


    Chris Grey discusses the Nissan thing and the diplomacy row in his latest blog:


    https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2021/01/get-ready-for-long-brexit.html

    "Today’s announcement that Nissan will continue its Sunderland operations is great news for its workers and suppliers there. It’s an important example of why having a trade deal with the EU is better than ‘no deal’ would have been. It’s also an example of the ‘shifting tectonic plates’ in that Nissan will move production of the battery for the Leaf model from Japan to the UK so as to ensure it meets the rules of origin for tariff free export to the EU, including the three year window provided for by the TCA for electric car batteries. But it doesn’t follow that the rest of the auto industry will stay, nor does it negate the fact that other damages are occurring. In terms of assessing Brexit it is ‘not bad news’ rather than being a positive achievement. For despite what Brexiters will be saying loudly today, it is not a demonstration of the success of Brexit to retain companies that were already here, and are staying despite the new trade barriers that Brexit has erected."



    "That gracelessness is especially evident in the story that emerged yesterday that the government is refusing to grant the EU’s new (and first) Ambassador to the UK full diplomatic status. It is petty, reflecting how, even having got Brexit, Brexiters are determined to sour and antagonise relations with the EU, and it is foolish in the context of the ongoing negotiations deriving from the TCA.

    But beyond that, it reveals an extraordinary irony, because the government’s justification is that full diplomatic status is not warranted as the EU is ‘not a nation state’ but simply an ‘international organization’. Yet for years the Brexiters’ core complaint was that the EU had become a super-state, making the UK’s membership sovereignty-sapping in a way that was quite different to its membership of other international organizations. So as the costs of Brexit rip through our country, revealing all the lies told of there being no costs, it is tacitly admitted that this was another lie. Indeed, it was the foundational lie."



    Emboldening mine.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9672
    J Mysterio
    Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    I said to leave it. Others want to continue(don't blame me for taking the thread off course)

    All I will say is that the seeds of war are sown in their posts. Brussels vs the Nation State. They will lose.

    I truly hope we don't reach that point.

    That is all.

    Completely ridiculous post, and classic Brexiteer speech: 'the seeds of war!'.

    Peregrinus expertly explained the context to you at length, you are either unable or unwilling to understand/ accept this.

    The UK are seemingly insisting on making even the most routine and commonplace aspects of international diplomacy inpossible. This at a time when they are under increasing pressure - internally - for the absolute mess they have made with their Brexit 'deal' and it's impact on their ability to function as a country at a basic level.

    This is month 1 since their 'independence'. Things are getting progressively worse and the true impact will be felt more over time - as all these businesses who are now struggling finally shut up shop. Covid is bad enough in terms of managing trade, but Brexit is the nail in the coffin.


  • Options
    #9673
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,923 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Yes, but the problem is not now is it? The problem is down the road.

    Symbolism matters - and it's only a matter of time until our, and everyone else's, diplomatic core is disbanded. Right? Brussels will conduct foreign policy.

    So, let me ask you this.

    Assuming countries don't leave of their own accord the EU (some will) - how do you think middle of the road people like me are going to think if we feel our nationality is being taken from us?

    How do you think it is going to go down?

    You push the EU (as is your right) but, in my opinion, don't understand the consequences down the road.

    What is wrong with the EU we have now? Why more, more, more?

    How after all this time are you still grasping at the concept of the EU and pooled sovereignty?

    It's maddening. You're petrified of something that hasn't come to pass at all, nor is likely to.


  • Options
    #9674
    dogbert27
    Registered Users Posts: 4,917 ✭✭✭dogbert27


    FFS, the EU are now placing a "Brexit Tax"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9175275/High-Street-retailers-luxury-brands-BURNING-dumping-EU-products.html#comments

    Welcome to the world outside of the EU! Boris lied to you people saying nothing will change, everything that you once took for granted is now changed!


  • Options
    #9675
    Padre_Pio
    Registered Users Posts: 4,965 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    dogbert27 wrote: »
    FFS, the EU are now placing a "Brexit Tax"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9175275/High-Street-retailers-luxury-brands-BURNING-dumping-EU-products.html#comments

    Welcome to the world outside of the EU! Boris lied to you people saying nothing will change, everything that you once took for granted is now changed!

    Do they blame it on the EU?
    Looks like they just blame it on Brexit.


  • Options
    #9676
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,923 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    correct horse battery staple wrote: »
    https://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publish/nissan-sunderland-factory-future-is-safe-after-manufacturer-hails-brexit-deal-as-positive/214639

    This Nissan thing is hilarious in the amount of spin and fud, just like brexit


    some choice quotes

    EU deal that brexiteers didnt want...


    MAY consider


    production lines shut down completely but theres an EXPECTATION it would resume


    Seems someone is trying hard to spin what is a negative into a positive

    The line yesterday on the breaking news ticker on sky news was that the shutting down of the assembly was due to supply issues caused by... You guessed it... Covid...


  • Options
    #9677
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,923 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    tubercolossus wrote: »
    Chris Grey discusses the Nissan thing and the diplomacy row in his latest blog:


    https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2021/01/get-ready-for-long-brexit.html

    "Today’s announcement that Nissan will continue its Sunderland operations is great news for its workers and suppliers there. It’s an important example of why having a trade deal with the EU is better than ‘no deal’ would have been. It’s also an example of the ‘shifting tectonic plates’ in that Nissan will move production of the battery for the Leaf model from Japan to the UK so as to ensure it meets the rules of origin for tariff free export to the EU, including the three year window provided for by the TCA for electric car batteries. But it doesn’t follow that the rest of the auto industry will stay, nor does it negate the fact that other damages are occurring. In terms of assessing Brexit it is ‘not bad news’ rather than being a positive achievement. For despite what Brexiters will be saying loudly today, it is not a demonstration of the success of Brexit to retain companies that were already here, and are staying despite the new trade barriers that Brexit has erected."



    "That gracelessness is especially evident in the story that emerged yesterday that the government is refusing to grant the EU’s new (and first) Ambassador to the UK full diplomatic status. It is petty, reflecting how, even having got Brexit, Brexiters are determined to sour and antagonise relations with the EU, and it is foolish in the context of the ongoing negotiations deriving from the TCA.

    But beyond that, it reveals an extraordinary irony, because the government’s justification is that full diplomatic status is not warranted as the EU is ‘not a nation state’ but simply an ‘international organization’. Yet for years the Brexiters’ core complaint was that the EU had become a super-state, making the UK’s membership sovereignty-sapping in a way that was quite different to its membership of other international organizations. So as the costs of Brexit rip through our country, revealing all the lies told of there being no costs, it is tacitly admitted that this was another lie. Indeed, it was the foundational lie."



    Emboldening mine.

    I read the author has "Chris Grayling" very quickly and it confused me to hell.

    At this stage all this sabre rattling is just a goon show. Let them at it.

    The last 3 weeks have shown exactly how awful the decision to leave has been and it's only gonna get worse. Tough tittie as they say.


  • Options
    #9678
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,506 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    I read the author has "Chris Grayling" very quickly and it confused me to hell.

    At this stage all this sabre rattling is just a goon show. Let them at it.

    The last 3 weeks have shown exactly how awful the decision to leave has been and it's only gonna get worse. Tough tittie as they say.

    But even if it does get better (and it will relatively get better over time as people adjust) was it worth all the cost and hassle.

    Sure, the politicians are still claiming that it is nothing but teething problems and nothing to worry about, but still haven't been able to tell anybody what the expected upside actually is.

    Should, for example, the fishermen by re-investing on other type of fishing equipment for other markets? THere appears to be no plan, no overall strategy of where the UK is actually going.


  • Options
    #9679
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,139 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Some recent BBC headlines on the European Union page that should be self explanatory.

    UK not going to do anything to make EU 'go crazy'

    Brexit: Government considers scrapping some EU labour laws

    UK and EU in row over bloc's diplomatic status


    UK accused of 'petty' behaviour in EU diplomat row


    Other countries ambassadors will be taking notes. The UK will have to sweeten future deals to because you don't do soft power by climbing down immediate after sabre rattling.




    I think I might not have been clear in my question.


    My understanding is that the treaty was accepted provisionally on the EU side. The EU has not formally ratified it and I think that the MEPs have asked for that timeline for ratification to be extended until April so that they can read through it properly.


    So, what happens if, they uncover something that they don't like and want it tightened up or modified? Does it have to be renegotiated? Or maybe a small thing could be done as a side deal, and depending on that, the deal as-is could be passed.


    Or even the nuclear option that they just don't ratify it?


  • Options
    #9680
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,750 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Genuinely don't understand how the Tories think they can get away with this sort of stuff for much longer. When will they run out of road. I suggest it's the UK media that's hiding or covering up this conceit for the citizens

    Video is extremely telling

    https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/1352578240217575425


  • Options
    #9681
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    dogbert27 wrote: »
    FFS, the EU are now placing a "Brexit Tax"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9175275/High-Street-retailers-luxury-brands-BURNING-dumping-EU-products.html#comments

    Welcome to the world outside of the EU! Boris lied to you people saying nothing will change, everything that you once took for granted is now changed!

    It is a Brexit tax if you accept it is the consequence of Brexit.

    However, they are quoting costs incorrectly. Now I am not familiar with the costs they are quoting, but the same costs of a purchase from here would illustrate the point.

    Item costs €100 inc VAT.
    Take off VAT @21% so net cost is €100/1.21 = €82.64.

    Add shipping - say €12.1 (inc VAT) so €10. giving total cost now €92.64.

    Convert to GB£ so now GB£83.3.

    Add GB£10 for customs clearance so now GB£92.30

    Now add UK VAT @20% which is GB£18.46

    So final cost is GB£110.76.


    A bit more, but not really, as the original cost the original cost was €100 plus €12.10 delivery, so €112.10 or converted becomes GB£100.89. In fact only the customs clearance cost is added to the pre-Brexit price.

    So a nonsense report from the newspaper of (broken) record.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9682
    CelticRambler
    Registered Users Posts: 6,726 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    So a nonsense report from the newspaper of (broken) record.

    Also cherry-picked, incomplete account, as another version of this story (think it was in the Guardian) pointed out that at least two of the people concerned had all the extra charges refunded by the retailers. There are, inevitably, "teething problems" arising from the UK government's idiotic brinksmanship, waiting until Christmas Eve to sign anything, then rushing it through Parliament without any meaningful discussion. These sorts of hiccups will fade as the weeks and months pass and customers inside and outside GB adjust to the new trading relationship. But equally, other completely predictable, entirely avoidable consequences will come to light, especially as the coronavirus pandemic wanes and British citizens try to pick up their EU-integrated lives where they left off in 2020.


  • Options
    #9683
    Strazdas
    Registered Users Posts: 18,138 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    dogbert27 wrote: »
    FFS, the EU are now placing a "Brexit Tax"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9175275/High-Street-retailers-luxury-brands-BURNING-dumping-EU-products.html#comments

    Welcome to the world outside of the EU! Boris lied to you people saying nothing will change, everything that you once took for granted is now changed!

    The commenters under the article urging people to 'Buy British' are missing the point that many of these British businesses might go bust because of Brexit.


  • Options
    #9684
    Padre_Pio
    Registered Users Posts: 4,965 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    It is a Brexit tax if you accept it is the consequence of Brexit.

    However, they are quoting costs incorrectly. Now I am not familiar with the costs they are quoting, but the same costs of a purchase from here would illustrate the point.

    EU companies probably charged EU VAT, so UK VAT and duty is added on top.

    Same happened me today. A UK company incorrectly charged me VAT, then refunded it. But the VAT was still on the invoice that customs use to charge Irish VAT and duty.


  • Options
    #9685
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    listermint wrote: »
    I suggest it's the UK media that's hiding or covering up this conceit for the citizens

    The Tories are still roughly on 40% support from the electorate despite having 100,000 dead from COVID, billions of GBP wasted on poorly functioning pandemic amelioration measures, fish rotting in harbours, empty ferries, full truck parks and so on, and so on.

    It's only with the support of a Tory sympathetic, billionaire owned media, combined with a subordinated state broadcaster, that they could get away with what they do.


  • Options
    #9686
    An Ciarraioch
    Registered Users Posts: 5,803 ✭✭✭An Ciarraioch


    As Nissan demonstrates, multinationals will be largely immune to Brexit, while smaller companies will be unable to absorb the costs:

    https://twitter.com/1CheshireCheese/status/1352534850142687232


  • Options
    #9687
    CelticRambler
    Registered Users Posts: 6,726 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    Not sure why they're referring to "an oversight" in the FTA - the UK government were crystal clear for pretty much the whole of last year that they were determined to keep everything agricultural out of the agreement. It was only in December that they reluctantly agreed to seek to be a listed third country for the purposes of pet animal movements.

    (And only this week have yet again refused to rule out lowering UK food standards, overturning a Lords amendment to this effect in the Trade Bill)


  • Options
    #9688
    J Mysterio
    Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    CelticRambler wrote: »
    Not sure why they're referring to "an oversight" in the FTA - the UK government were crystal clear for pretty much the whole of last year that they were determined to keep everything agricultural out of the agreement. It was only in December that they reluctantly agreed to seek to be a listed third country for the purposes of pet animal movements.

    Guess they don't want to say because of the ****ing brexiteers. They still need to survive!


  • Options
    #9689
    sondagefaux
    Registered Users Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    CelticRambler wrote: »
    Not sure why they're referring to "an oversight" in the FTA - the UK government were crystal clear for pretty much the whole of last year that they were determined to keep everything agricultural out of the agreement. It was only in December that they reluctantly agreed to seek to be a listed third country for the purposes of pet animal movements.

    (And only this week have yet again refused to rule out lowering UK food standards, overturning a Lords amendment to this effect in the Trade Bill)

    This is an automatic consequence of leaving the Single Market.

    Outside the Single Market, all exports of products of animal origin (which includes dairy products) must be accompanied by an Export Health Certificate issued by a qualified vet.

    The cost to get this done in Britain is £180 per certificate.

    This company tweeted that its average order value to the EU was £25, and that EU sales were 15% of its turnover.

    It's obviously impossible to sell small orders of many foodstuffs from Britain to the Single Market when each order must have its own Export Health Certificate at £180 per order.


  • Options
    #9690
    CelticRambler
    Registered Users Posts: 6,726 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    sondagefaux wrote: »
    This is an automatic consequence of leaving the Single Market.

    Outside the Single Market, all exports of products of animal origin (which includes dairy products) must be accompanied by an Export Health Certificate issued by a qualified vet.

    It's a consequence, yes, and an avoidable one - but not an oversight as the tweet(er) suggested. If there was any oversight, as in failure to take account, it's on the part of just about everyone in the UK (other than the Brexit-Tory Party, obviously) who didn't pay enough attention to what leaving the SM&CU would mean.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9691
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,163 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    CelticRambler wrote: »
    It's a consequence, yes, and an avoidable one - but not an oversight as the tweet(er) suggested. If there was any oversight, as in failure to take account, it's on the part of just about everyone in the UK (other than the Brexit-Tory Party, obviously) who didn't pay enough attention to what leaving the SM&CU would mean.

    In the same way that Irish people can say something and everyone understands they mean something else, this is a very English way of saying 'the feckers messed it up', but politely. It will be lost on most Europeans but any English person would know exactly what they were saying.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement