The richest country in Europe is Switzerland....

Pacifico doesn't have a point. And I have nothing to defend. That is, his argument is not contradictory to mine. What he asserts supports what I assert and vice versa. 

He just doesn't seem to like to be in agreement with me and so has chosen to double down on this ridiculous idea.  Hence, the little quips and digs and editing out crucial part of the premise which I find amusing.  Hence, the smiley faces.

I've always used emojis. Smiley face for when I'm amused or Roll Eyes instead of typing "Yeah, right."

Northern Ireland isn't in the EU.

It isn't even democratically represented. 

I have never said that the UK wants "leniency" of any kind. You plainly don't understand the English language - like a lot of people on this forum. We're now a third party country and should be treated as such. The problem is that we ARE being treated as a special case. Places like Switzerland and Turkey do NOT get treated like this.

The point is that as soon as we left the SM there needed to be checks on goods imported to the EU. Everyone knew that. But the EU trades via WTO rules with many countries (who are also sensible enough not to have joined the SM) and the EU don't deliberately put obstacles in the way. The way this trade works is that a lot of the checks are computerised. The importer sends information to the border control about what the goods and this computerised data is accessed when the goods arrive at the border. A decision is made as to whether the goods need checking. It's a mixture of random selection and specific targeting of certain goods - but the point is that the checks are kept to a minimum to avoid creating delays and queues. Only a very small proportion of goods are checked. In fact we now check NOTHING from the EU - which is crazy IMO.

However, in the cause of UK imports all goods have to carry full paper documentation - some of it very extensive. It can't be checked beforehand and it causes delays while the documentation is checked. And, as I've said, some documentation is rejected for trivial reasons (like pages being numbered wrongly for example). There was a good article in the Times a few months ago where they had a long list of examples of the EU turning back goods for incomprehensible reasons. Also, as I've said, they are 40 times more likely to check UK imports than imports from other third party countries. The object is to CAUSE friction, not minimise it. 

I've pointed out the problems several times but you keep on spouting the same nonsense and never address the plain facts. The EU are trying to sabotage Brexit - as you are too. There's no doubt about this. The EU is not acting with "goodwill" and it's obvious to anyone of normal intelligence why.

You need to address the facts and stop the EU propaganda. You've just made yourself look a fool. 

    

To prevent entrance of those that are unauthorised to enter.

Now that you've been educated that goods don't need to be immediately checked at ports:

- Why can't goods destined for the EU be "subject to inspection" when they arrive in the EU - namely Ireland?

- Why can't goods destined for Northern Ireland from GB be subject to the same status as they are from Birmingham to Cardiff?

Now, before you hide behind the legalistic waffle of the WA & Protocol batting away for team EU - I'm asking you, why can't these things be practically implemented?

If a question does not deserve an answer then you don't answer it.  But, personally, I acknowledge the fact that the question has been asked.