The Brexit Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
NarrowBandFtw said:
And your reason to believe that just because something took 6 months previously it will continue to take 6 months when it becomes a critical success factor is ... ?
Click to expand...

Let us see what people who actually deal with customs borders on the EU have to say? How about the customs border with the ever efficient Swiss?

“Well I’ve got actual experience of delivering goods from the EU into Switzerland and there are huge amounts of checks and paperwork and costs and delays involved.

“Believe me, it is very far from frictionless.

“When I was delivering goods for an exhibition there, I had to get an invoice of the goods in advance from the client, pay an upfront cost (to be claimed back later), contact a customs agent at Dover to let him know what was I delivering, wait hours in a car park whilst the paperwork was being cleared, drive to Switzerland and then clear customs again at the Swiss border.

“None of this is necessary if you’re in the Customs Union.

“Norway is another model that sometimes gets brought up, even though Norway is in the Single Market which the UK Government wants to leave (although like Switzerland, Norway is not in the Customs Union)."

“Again, I’ve delivered goods across the Norway border and it’s not as straightforward as we are being told by the politicians.

“Due to the nature of the goods I was delivering, I was advised to get a carnet - a passport for goods.

“They vary in price but this one cost £750. It took my customer one week to compile the carnet, and EVERYTHING had to be listed.

“If you get it wrong, the fines are big, even if it’s an honest mistake.

“Once I arrived in Norway I was stopped by customs and told to park up while they check everything in my van against what was listed on the carnet, a process that took five hours."

“I recently acquired a big contract with a major European customer to collect and deliver goods on an express service (usually overnight) from Paris to London and back twice a week.

“This will only be made possible by the freedom of movement of commercial goods.

“I really fear that this contract will be lost if we leave.

“I know it’s not just about me.

“This is about the wider picture: we need to look after the interests of the UK as a whole, not just the wishes of a few who want to leave the Customs Union and the Single Market for their own benefit.
Click to expand...

When France has one slight hiccup on the tunnel, trucks queue up to miles on the M20. It was not built with a customs facility in mind.

So this is where I get confused with Libertarians. You would prefer a system with more laws and government red tape, over a system that is red tape free?
 
Last edited:
buka001 said:
Let us see what people who actually deal with customs borders on the EU have to say? How about the customs border with the ever efficient Swiss?



When France has one slight hiccup on the tunnel, trucks queue up to miles on the M20. It was not built with a customs facility in mind.

So this is where I get confused with Libertarians. You would prefer a system with more laws and government red tape, over a system that is red tape free?
Click to expand...

Self detamination. You didn’t get it?

Now the UK can say no to this one truck of Spanish peas after making the other 9999 trucks wait 20h with spoiled fresh goods for it.

/s
 
buka001 said:
Missing the point.

You are talking about laws/directives that have already been passed.

The UK has the power to influence such laws/directives, before they are passed.
Click to expand...

You sure are missing the point, agreed.

A hostage that develops Stockholm syndrome is still a hostage. A slave that enters into slavery willingly is still a slave. Neither can choose to end their plight without someone else's say so. Neither has self-determination.
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
You sure are missing the point, agreed.

A hostage that develops Stockholm syndrome is still a hostage. A slave that enters into slavery willingly is still a slave. Neither can choose to end their plight without someone else's say so. Neither has self-determination.
Click to expand...

Such emotive words from someone who loves to argue that reals > feels.
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
You sure are missing the point, agreed.

A hostage that develops Stockholm syndrome is still a hostage. A slave that enters into slavery willingly is still a slave. Neither can choose to end their plight without someone else's say so. Neither has self-determination.
Click to expand...

None of the drivel you posted actually deals with the fact that the UK has influence over the laws and directives before they are promulgated.

Can a slave negotiate with its master about some forthcoming law under which they are subjected to? No. How many slaves sat with their master and had a discussion about limiting the amount of lashes to 1 per week???

So your analogy is a complete failure.
 
buka001 said:
None of the drivel you posted actually deals with the fact that the UK has influence over the laws and directives before they are promulgated.

Can a slave negotiate with its master about some forthcoming law under which they are subjected to? No. How many slaves sat with their master and had a discussion about limiting the amount of lashes to 1 per week???

So your analogy is a complete failure.
Click to expand...

The only complete failure is your comprehension. As long as you have to submit to even a single lash, or a single law, you are NOT free. Influence is not self-determination, you might as well claim you control our government because you get to vote once every 5 years, puhlease :crylaugh:
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
Facts != theories

Are you of the opinion that the UK has 100% self-determination while submitting to a foreign power? It really is as simple as that.
Click to expand...

Shouldn’t the UK leave NATO, the ECHR, OSCE, UN and the Commonwealth?

They bind the UK to rules.
 
f2wohf said:
Shouldn’t the UK leave NATO, the ECHR, OSCE, UN and the Commonwealth?
They bind the UK to rules.
Click to expand...
Do they enforce new laws on the UK? Do they directly impact their ability to determine their own path?

If not, then it's not exactly the same, but the answer happens to be yes for different reasons.
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
Do they enforce new laws on the UK? Do they directly impact their ability to determine their own path?

If not, then it's not exactly the same, but the answer happens to be yes for different reasons.
Click to expand...

The UK would be forced to defend other NATO members in case of aggression without having a say even if such NATO member was wrong.

The ECHR does enforce rulings and can order for legislation to be modified.

The UN can take resolutions that the UK would have to respect even if it was against it otherwise they would be sanctioned.

So in a nutshell, yes they do enforce new rules on the UK.
 
f2wohf said:
Shouldn’t the UK leave NATO, the ECHR, OSCE, UN and the Commonwealth?

They bind the UK to rules.
Click to expand...

Yeah because the EU is comparable to those organizations in terms of influence. Just a quick rebuttal off the top of my head is that you can't control immigration within the EU yet NATO, for example, doesn't enforce rules related to defence spending. Nations are free to spend as little/much as they like. Yes there's a "goal" to spend 2% of GDP on defence but nothing happens if it is not met, or else Germany would have been forced out long ago.
 
buka001 said:
Missing the point.

You are talking about laws/directives that have already been passed.

The UK has the power to influence such laws/directives, before they are passed. That is where they are able to assert their respective rights.

After the UK leave they will still have to abide by many of the EU directives if they have any hope of a trade deal. As does South Africa for example. It has to abide by EU directives for the naming of "sparkling wine".
Click to expand...

Except I recall during the referendum the UK was largely outvoted on most issues, hence there was no point in being involved anyway. The fact that the UK was regarded as only having equal say, even though it is a far bigger and influential than all those Mickey mouse Eastern European countries....well, it's not hard to see why some people would say: we have had enough of this nonsense, let's decide what we want, not what majority of European nations want. Those interests are not always aligned with each other.
 
buka001 said:
TIL that the UK does not have self determination as part of the EU...
TIL that in spite of the UK having veto powers within the EU and the fact that it has used it multiple times, somehow this translates to a diminished level of self-determination.
TIL the fact that the UK has its own currency separate to the Euro is an indication of its lack of self determination.
TIL the when the UK leaves the EU, in order to gain some semblance of a trade deal it will have to abide by EU legislation, without having any input or voting authority on that legislation and that somehow translates to the UK having more self-determination.
Click to expand...

Ok let's get something clear here: only companies who want to do business with the EU will have to abide by EU regulations. Very different to all EU regulations automatically applying to the UK, whether it benefits the UK or not.

Also much quicker to negotiate trade deals with a single country than a group of 27, where some arb country in the middle of nowhere wants protection for their unique blend of rum, for example.
 
Chris_the_Brit said:
Yeah because the EU is comparable to those organizations in terms of influence. Just a quick rebuttal off the top of my head is that you can't control immigration within the EU yet NATO, for example, doesn't enforce rules related to defence spending. Nations are free to spend as little/much as they like. Yes there's a "goal" to spend 2% of GDP on defence but nothing happens if it is not met, or else Germany would have been forced out long ago.
Click to expand...

Wrong, the UK can perfectly control most of its immigration as the large majority is out of EU immigration. The Tories could have done that since 20 years and kick out the Indians, Pakistani, Bengali, South Africans which constitute a very large share of the immigration, they didn’t hence it’s a false pretense.

Yet, even if France threw nukes at Morocco for no reason and UK disagreed with France, if one Moroccan soldier stepped a foot in France, UK would be forced to back up France. Mind-boggling no?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X