| Cat among the pigeons 19:55 - Jul 4 with 2706 views | GlasgowBlue |
|  |
| |  |
| Cat among the pigeons on 09:56 - Jul 5 with 509 views | BlueBadger |
He's basically acknowledged that Brexit is essentially a cult and that pointing out that it's a clusterf**k iand we should never have left the EU in the first place is pissing in the wind, so he's basically proposing stealth rejoining.
Because the Church of Blue Passports and No Foreigners are really quite thick and might not spot that. [Post edited 5 Jul 2022 10:02]
|  |
| |
| Cat among the pigeons on 09:57 - Jul 5 with 505 views | Darth_Koont |
So he’s adopting the position of Labour in 2017 when a Labour government could have delivered a softer Brexit. But now it’s a pretty academic position based on platitudes.
What happened in 2019? And what happened to another Starmer leadership pledge? |  |
| |
| Cat among the pigeons on 09:57 - Jul 5 with 506 views | BlueBadger |
| Cat among the pigeons on 07:28 - Jul 5 by BanksterDebtSlave |
The problem with using focus groups to set your agenda is that you end up being constantly behind the curve! I'm not sure he believes anything. |
I thought you'd be pleased he's finally getting behind Blue Passports and No Foreigners Labour.... [Post edited 5 Jul 2022 10:01]
| |
| |
| Cat among the pigeons on 09:59 - Jul 5 with 490 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Cat among the pigeons on 09:22 - Jul 5 by LeoMuff |
Surely the best of both worlds is single market access, we are technically out of the EU but retaining the main benefits, Irish problem solved. |
Not the single market. The customs union. | |
| |
| Cat among the pigeons on 10:45 - Jul 5 with 404 views | JDB23 |
| Cat among the pigeons on 09:57 - Jul 5 by Darth_Koont |
So he’s adopting the position of Labour in 2017 when a Labour government could have delivered a softer Brexit. But now it’s a pretty academic position based on platitudes.
What happened in 2019? And what happened to another Starmer leadership pledge? |
Starmer changes his position to whichever way the wind is blowing, people may call it sensible grown-up politics but I'd prefer our politicians to actually stand for something. He has proven he will adopt a position to further his career then drop it at the first convenient moment so I'm not sure how he can be trusted on anything he says.
I do think this Brexit position is the right one to take although I'm not sure he had to completely rule out some of the softer Brexit entities. |  | | |
| Cat among the pigeons on 10:48 - Jul 5 with 403 views | Churchman |
| Cat among the pigeons on 09:51 - Jul 5 by Blueschev |
"the EU has imposed the hardest border controls regime it can. It chose to do that for political reasons, not pragmatic ones. It didn’t have to do that, it chose to." The UK is now subject to the same border controls as any other third country. We chose that by leaving the customs union. Anybody who thought it would be any different didn't know what they were talking about, which was most of the morons who campaigned to leave. |
I’m not arguing for Brexit and don’t want to endlessly re-do that debate. It’s happened, unfortunately. In this, Starmer is right. I’m more interested how this can be moved forward for the benefit of all.
Border checks are not a case of one size fits all third country so there it is, tough luck. They’re much more complex than that.
A made up example (I know, livestock has to go through a BIP, Vets, etc): - if you import 1000 chickens from Australia and 1000 chickens from say Vietnam you can flex the level of check from zero to every single chicken. Your checks flex in volume and frequency depending on risk so if chicken dinner disease had been high in Australia recently, you’d check them all. For now.
Different products, different checks, different frequency. Some things recross a border several times before they become a finished product. Some products contain local bits (rules of origin etc). It’s complex.
Some goods are just transiting which is why the first arrangement I’d review would be stuff to and from Eire through Britain to the Channel Tunnel. Ok, shipping to Bilbao is fine, but adding a couple of days transit to say Irish perishable goods or higher value stuff that isn’t valuable enough for air freight when you don’t have to is ludicrous.
The EU and Uk third country border check regulation are mountain high. You can implement them how you wish to a certain extent. The EU for example could have introduced checks over time to allow businesses to adjust, not least because the risk change of no checks from the day before EU exit to the day after was zero. Over time that risk rises (6 months plus) and controls need to be introduced.
They were perfectly within their rights to implement them the way they did and from a political perspective, I can see why they did. They were perfectly within their rights to refuse financial equivalence to most U.K. financial services after U.K. granted it for EU FS. But in the long term who does that benefit?
In the future, the EU and U.K. need to come to far better arrangements than exist now. This won’t happen till The tories go. If this doesn’t happen, EU / U.K. trade will continue to decline to the detriment of both. I think and hope this is where Starmer is coming from. |  | | |
| Cat among the pigeons on 10:57 - Jul 5 with 397 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| Cat among the pigeons on 09:16 - Jul 5 by BloomBlue |
That's what I mean, he doesn't want to upset the brexiteers who might vote for him so they have won then arguement.
I'm not talking about the arguement about positives / negatives of leaving the EU but if Starmer's stance 3 years ago was staying in the EU and now he conceds he wont go back then those arguing 3 years not to go back have won that arguement as far as Starmer is concerned |
So, if I said, for example, vote for me and I'll make everyone in the country £1000 better off (without specifying exacly how, other than just vote for me), and people do vote for me, and I win, and then I turn round and say, oh, sorry, don't think I'll be able to give you the £1000, in fact, you'll all be worse off, not better off - and I say, actually if you vote for the other person, you'll be even worse off (even if there are no real resons for that being the case), so you might as well carry on voting for me, have I won the argument? |  |
| |
| Cat among the pigeons on 11:03 - Jul 5 with 390 views | Blueschev |
| Cat among the pigeons on 10:48 - Jul 5 by Churchman |
I’m not arguing for Brexit and don’t want to endlessly re-do that debate. It’s happened, unfortunately. In this, Starmer is right. I’m more interested how this can be moved forward for the benefit of all.
Border checks are not a case of one size fits all third country so there it is, tough luck. They’re much more complex than that.
A made up example (I know, livestock has to go through a BIP, Vets, etc): - if you import 1000 chickens from Australia and 1000 chickens from say Vietnam you can flex the level of check from zero to every single chicken. Your checks flex in volume and frequency depending on risk so if chicken dinner disease had been high in Australia recently, you’d check them all. For now.
Different products, different checks, different frequency. Some things recross a border several times before they become a finished product. Some products contain local bits (rules of origin etc). It’s complex.
Some goods are just transiting which is why the first arrangement I’d review would be stuff to and from Eire through Britain to the Channel Tunnel. Ok, shipping to Bilbao is fine, but adding a couple of days transit to say Irish perishable goods or higher value stuff that isn’t valuable enough for air freight when you don’t have to is ludicrous.
The EU and Uk third country border check regulation are mountain high. You can implement them how you wish to a certain extent. The EU for example could have introduced checks over time to allow businesses to adjust, not least because the risk change of no checks from the day before EU exit to the day after was zero. Over time that risk rises (6 months plus) and controls need to be introduced.
They were perfectly within their rights to implement them the way they did and from a political perspective, I can see why they did. They were perfectly within their rights to refuse financial equivalence to most U.K. financial services after U.K. granted it for EU FS. But in the long term who does that benefit?
In the future, the EU and U.K. need to come to far better arrangements than exist now. This won’t happen till The tories go. If this doesn’t happen, EU / U.K. trade will continue to decline to the detriment of both. I think and hope this is where Starmer is coming from. |
I move goods between borders for a living, and I have never come across a third country that would not have meat examined as a matter of course. The level of checks varies depending on country it's true, but there are always checks. Why would it be any different for the UK once we left the customs union? The UK chose not to implement the border sufficiently due to nothing other than incompetence, 2021 would've been a money launderers wet dream, nobody had any idea what was coming in from the EU. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Cat among the pigeons on 12:10 - Jul 5 with 359 views | Freddies_Ears |
| Cat among the pigeons on 09:51 - Jul 5 by Blueschev |
"the EU has imposed the hardest border controls regime it can. It chose to do that for political reasons, not pragmatic ones. It didn’t have to do that, it chose to." The UK is now subject to the same border controls as any other third country. We chose that by leaving the customs union. Anybody who thought it would be any different didn't know what they were talking about, which was most of the morons who campaigned to leave. |
We can hardly claim we didn't know what the implications would be (of being a 'third country') as we were centrally involved in writing the rules... | | | |
| Cat among the pigeons on 13:17 - Jul 5 with 323 views | Blueschev |
| Cat among the pigeons on 12:10 - Jul 5 by Freddies_Ears |
We can hardly claim we didn't know what the implications would be (of being a 'third country') as we were centrally involved in writing the rules... |
Given the sheer volume ignorant rubbish spouted by the leave campaign in the run up to the vote, I have no doubt that many of the leading figures, including the current prime minister, had little if any understanding of how the customs union worked. | | | |
| Cat among the pigeons on 13:25 - Jul 5 with 315 views | Churchman |
| Cat among the pigeons on 11:03 - Jul 5 by Blueschev |
I move goods between borders for a living, and I have never come across a third country that would not have meat examined as a matter of course. The level of checks varies depending on country it's true, but there are always checks. Why would it be any different for the UK once we left the customs union? The UK chose not to implement the border sufficiently due to nothing other than incompetence, 2021 would've been a money launderers wet dream, nobody had any idea what was coming in from the EU. |
The example was made up purely for simplicity. My post was too long as it was. I’m fully aware of how agriproducts are moved from seeds to live animals both in and out. The example was to explain that it was far more complex than one size fits all checks.
No, I believe the U.K. chose not to implement import checks for economic reasons and the pandemic more than an inability to implement them. It wasn’t incompetence. The procedures were fully known and were prepared for no deal as far as was possible by March 2019.
I choose my words carefully because there was so much still to do, despite extraordinary work that went on behind the scenes.
As far as nobody having any idea what was coming in from the EU, you are right. That was part of the problem. Nobody had known for years what was coming in or going out so it all had to be worked out and understood. It didn’t need to be known within the single market. That was one of its big advantages.
It was astonishing what we didn’t know, but the risk didn’t change overnight. My view, especially with regard to agriproducts and product standards was that the risk would rise after 6 months and that was the latest time by which some sort of import checks ought to begin. BJs mob clearly thought different as it turned out as can be seen from the import/export data..
Yes, there will always be checks for third countries, unless you have pipeline style agreements in place (the future), but the volume, frequency aspect is what I was rather badly trying to explain. [Post edited 5 Jul 2022 20:25]
| | | |
| Cat among the pigeons on 14:13 - Jul 5 with 287 views | BlueForYou |
Very good by Starmer & it will gain a lot of votes. Labour were a confused mess on Europe for years. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
