|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 22, 2022 7:49:53 GMT
got a link to this rule and when did they bring it in? You should be so lucky! You're the one undermining what I claim. So. Got a link to your claim that contradicts mine? Well it's never been the case that all customs inspections are done at the port of entry - now you are claiming that there is a rule mandating that, I'm just interested in what this new rule says. But if it's just something that you made up then OK. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2022 8:00:01 GMT
You should be so lucky! You're the one undermining what I claim. So. Got a link to your claim that contradicts mine? Well it's never been the case that all customs inspections are done at the port of entry - now you are claiming that there is a rule mandating that, I'm just interested in what this new rule says. But if it's just something that you made up then OK. Yeah, yeah. So, do you have a link that supports what you are saying? |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 22, 2022 8:04:09 GMT
Gnome says: We're obligated to follow EU trade rules. But we don't. Hence, all our problems with the Northern Ireland Protocol.
Wrong again. All the EU product rules are still in UK law because we haven't got round to repealing them - we could but we haven't. So all products still comply with EU law. And as I said the problems with NI protocol are due to EU bad faith in "weaponising" the "border" - for the simple reason that they want to split the UK. Martin Selmayr said that this was what the EU would do. It's no secret.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 22, 2022 8:04:41 GMT
Well it's never been the case that all customs inspections are done at the port of entry - now you are claiming that there is a rule mandating that, I'm just interested in what this new rule says. But if it's just something that you made up then OK. Yeah, yeah. So, do you have a link that supports what you are saying? Of course - unlike you I dont spend my days on this forum inventing shit.. Customs checks mainly apply to imports. In 2016, 6% of import declarations were checked and less than 2% were physically checked. The vast majority of these checks were carried out in approved warehouses and other premises, with a very small number at a port or airport.
link |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 22, 2022 8:07:02 GMT
Gnome says: We're obligated to follow EU trade rules. But we don't. Hence, all our problems with the Northern Ireland Protocol. Wrong again. All the EU product rules are still in UK law because we haven't got round to repealing them - we could but we haven't. So all products still comply with EU law. And as I said the problems with NI protocol are due to EU bad faith in "weaponising" the "border" - for the simple reason that they want to split the UK. Martin Selmayr said that this was what the EU would do. Correct - the EU could have treated UK imports the same way as any other imports but they decided (for internal political reasons) to make the UK a special case and treat them more strictly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2022 10:30:19 GMT
Yeah, yeah. So, do you have a link that supports what you are saying? Of course - unlike you I dont spend my days on this forum inventing shit.. Customs checks mainly apply to imports. In 2016, 6% of import declarations were checked and less than 2% were physically checked. The vast majority of these checks were carried out in approved warehouses and other premises, with a very small number at a port or airport.
linkOf course, I don't invent things -- don't be silly. You're only saying that because I've put you on the spot. So. According to your link, the vast majority of checks are carried out in approved warehouses and other premises. And that's the basis of your query. But here's what I said: "... all non-EU goods must be checked the moment they enter the EU." You will note that I have "bolded" the words that make your challenge invalid and useless. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2022 10:38:15 GMT
Gnome says: We're obligated to follow EU trade rules. But we don't. Hence, all our problems with the Northern Ireland Protocol. Wrong again. All the EU product rules are still in UK law because we haven't got round to repealing them - we could but we haven't. So all products still comply with EU law. And as I said the problems with NI protocol are due to EU bad faith in "weaponising" the "border" - for the simple reason that they want to split the UK. Martin Selmayr said that this was what the EU would do. It's no secret.  ^ So, what about the trading rules contained in the Withdrawal Agreement -- e.g., that GB goods must go through customs checks in Northern Ireland? The Withdrawal Agreement/NI Protocol obligate us to follow such rules. But we don't follow such rules. We choose not to, even. Hence, the numerous lawsuits against us. Hence, the EU's mistrust of the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 22, 2022 12:05:06 GMT
Of course - unlike you I dont spend my days on this forum inventing shit.. Customs checks mainly apply to imports. In 2016, 6% of import declarations were checked and less than 2% were physically checked. The vast majority of these checks were carried out in approved warehouses and other premises, with a very small number at a port or airport.
linkOf course, I don't invent things -- don't be silly. You're only saying that because I've put you on the spot. So. According to your link, the vast majority of checks are carried out in approved warehouses and other premises. And that's the basis of your query. But here's what I said: "... all non-EU goods must be checked the moment they enter the EU." You will note that I have "bolded" the words that make your challenge invalid and useless. Yes - the claim you invented. If you are going to make things up its better to choose something that cannot be so easily checked. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2022 13:00:43 GMT
Of course, I don't invent things -- don't be silly. You're only saying that because I've put you on the spot. So. According to your link, the vast majority of checks are carried out in approved warehouses and other premises. And that's the basis of your query. But here's what I said: "... all non-EU goods must be checked the moment they enter the EU." You will note that I have "bolded" the words that make your challenge invalid and useless. Yes - the claim you invented. If you are going to make things up its better to choose something that cannot be so easily checked. I say that all non-EU goods must be checked when they enter the EU -- which is a fact. You say that the vast majority of checks are carried out somewhere in the EU. Fine. Therefore, you, yourself, confirm that all non-EU goods must be checked and, indeed, checks are carried out. Where's the invention here? Tell me. Next time, when you make a challenge? You have to make sure you understand what you are talking about and what you are challenging. Don't just throw quips and silly questions or read bits and pieces of articles without knowing their meaning and connotation. I mean, look at what's happened to you here: I talk about non-EU goods and how they are subject to EU checks. You, in your infinite wisdom, decide to talk about EU checks and where they are carried out. And then say I invent things, as well! Your counter claim is useless, isn't it? It's invalid. You're challenging the wrong thing. I mean, "non-EU goods must be checked" versus "vast majority of checks are carried out..." -- how does it even..? Seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 23, 2022 7:55:50 GMT
Just cut out the lying and move on... |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 23, 2022 8:26:12 GMT
Yes - the claim you invented. If you are going to make things up its better to choose something that cannot be so easily checked. I say that all non-EU goods must be checked when they enter the EU -- which is a fact. You say that the vast majority of checks are carried out somewhere in the EU. Fine. Therefore, you, yourself, confirm that all non-EU goods must be checked and, indeed, checks are carried out. Where's the invention here? Tell me. You seem to be forgetting that trade is meant to be beneficial to both sides. The goods that the EU are holding up are goods that people in the EU countries have ordered - some people want to buy British goods - and by making it difficult the EU are also annoying and frustrating their own people. It's in their own interests to make goods flow as smoothly as possible. There are many ways of doing the checks without inconveniencing everybody by using technology or common sense (like approved traders), yet the EU refuse to do this, or even talk about it. We should do the same to them. Remember we buy a lot of goods from EU (and have a trade deficit with them) so they have a lot to lose. Remember all the fuss the EU made of striking a trade deal with Canada? Our trade is 6 times bigger than Canada's. If we stop buying EU cars it will hit their car manufacturers hard. We're a rich country and we buy a lot of high spec cars, which is why we're called Treasure Island. It's about time we started standing up for ourselves. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2022 10:35:57 GMT
I say that all non-EU goods must be checked when they enter the EU -- which is a fact. You say that the vast majority of checks are carried out somewhere in the EU. Fine. Therefore, you, yourself, confirm that all non-EU goods must be checked and, indeed, checks are carried out. Where's the invention here? Tell me. You seem to be forgetting that trade is meant to be beneficial to both sides. The goods that the EU are holding up are goods that people in the EU countries have ordered - some people want to buy British goods - and by making it difficult the EU are also annoying and frustrating their own people. It's in their own interests to make goods flow as smoothly as possible. There are many ways of doing the checks without inconveniencing everybody by using technology or common sense (like approved traders), yet the EU refuse to do this, or even talk about it. We should do the same to them. Remember we buy a lot of goods from EU (and have a trade deficit with them) so they have a lot to lose. Remember all the fuss the EU made of striking a trade deal with Canada? Our trade is 6 times bigger than Canada's. If we stop buying EU cars it will hit their car manufacturers hard. We're a rich country and we buy a lot of high spec cars, which is why we're called Treasure Island. It's about time we started standing up for ourselves. I have always agreed that the EU wants UK trade. I actually use the word need rather than want. I don't deny it; the EU themselves don't deny it. But what they also do not deny is that they will not pursue trade with the UK at the expense of their Single Market. That, you must accept and consider when assessing the problem -- if you want a balanced argument, that is. Crucial to that is the issue of trust that we ourselves have destroyed. The EU would have probably stretched themselves and bent their own rules short of breaking point for the UK had we not been so jingoistic, arrogant and scheming. But even during the transition period we started threatening to scrap the WA. A month or so after ratifying the TCA and boom! -- We unilaterally extended grace periods. When things got a bit more complicated, BJ Brexit supporters started oscillating between "they're punishing us" and "they need us, more than we need them!" You guys still do it now -- can't decide whether the UK's the victim or the victor. Seriously. There is no need for us to stand up for ourselves. And there is no need for that kind of language either. All we need to do is to be realistic about our situation now that we have left the EU. Kill that unicorn in your heads already. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2022 10:44:33 GMT
Just cut out the lying and move on... Draws a blank. ^ Can't defend his argument. Won't defend his argument. But fine, we will move on. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 23, 2022 18:25:25 GMT
Just cut out the lying and move on... Draws a blank. ^ Can't defend his argument. Won't defend his argument. But fine, we will move on.
thank fuck for that. Now we have established to everyones agreement that the claim that "all non-EU goods must be checked the moment they enter the EU" is bunk - what is the real reason for the EU opposing treating the UK like any other non-EU nation? Punishment for leaving perhaps? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2022 20:10:46 GMT
Draws a blank. ^ Can't defend his argument. Won't defend his argument. But fine, we will move on.
thank fuck for that. Now we have established to everyones agreement that the claim that "all non-EU goods must be checked the moment they enter the EU" is bunk - what is the real reason for the EU opposing treating the UK like any other non-EU nation? Punishment for leaving perhaps? ^ I knew it! The man would be back -- incensed and in tears. Can't move on; won't move on. ^ Let me conflate or mash-up the two claims together and see if he gets it this time: "All non-EU goods must be checked the moment they enter the EU...and... the vast majority of these checks are carried out in approved warehouses and other premises, with a very small number at a port or airport."Meaning, upon entering the EU non-EU goods become subject to EU checks and these EU checks are carried out either in approved warehouses or at the port of entry. The first clause reaffirms the second clause and vice versa. My claim reaffirms your claim and vice versa. What I say is not in conflict with your statement and vice versa. Stop finding conflict where there is none. You are inventing things. You're like that war freak overlord from Moscow. Embarrassing. And what punishment for leaving are you talking about now? Don't be ridiculous -- the EU's not punishing the UK for leaving! The EU is treating the UK according to the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement and all associated agreements. |
|
^