The NI Protocol can never be the long-term solution to this problem.
As things stand, someone in NI (which is not in the EU) cannot freely sell something to another person in NI (still not in the EU) if the product contains goods that might come from the UK (still not in the EU).
This is because "checks" need to be carried out to ensure that the UK is complying with EU rules-despite the fact that (behind the patriotic bluster) we have not diverged from any EU rule in relation to foodstuff.
I appreciate that there is supposedly a "risk" that people from Ireland might purchase an identical product from NI instead of Ireland. Although I fail to see why that should be our problem.
Perhaps I am being naive. But (to me) the solution sounds really simple. Producers from GB wishing to export to NI to have 2 choices. Firstly, to confirm that their processes conform to EU standards. Or to confirm they do not, and checks to take place.
And if that is not good enough for the EU, they can try banning the people from Ireland from buying Northern Irish goods. That will work
Avoids all the English flag-waving and Irish vote-winning by attacking the English.
If we cannot agree that, then there needs to be a radical change. NI needs either to become part of Ireland or a genuine part of the UK, like everywhere else in the UK.
Brexit: What's the Northern Ireland Protocol?
Why does the UK want to change the protocol? Despite signing up to the agreement in 2019, the UK government now says the protocol represented a huge compromise by the UK and has accused the EU of applying it too rigidly.
The UK is calling for changes, which include:
Getting rid of checks and paperwork between Great Britain and Northern Ireland Ensuring that goods that remain in Northern Ireland only need to meet British standards without also needing to comply with EU law Removing the role the European Commission and the European Court of Justice have in overseeing how the protocol works
What has the EU proposed? The EU has set out proposals, but says a renegotiation of the text of the Protocol is out of the question:
An 80% reduction in checks on food products arriving in Northern Ireland, as well as halving the amount of paperwork involved. Reduce the customs information firms need to provide Pass legislation to allow the trade in medicines between GB and Northern Ireland to continue Relax rules so chilled meats, such as sausages, could still be sent across the Irish Sea. In return, the EU wants extra safeguards to prevent products from Great Britain crossing into the Republic of Ireland.
What is the Northern Ireland Protocol? The protocol allows lorries to deliver goods without having paperwork and goods checked when they cross the border from Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland.
This arrangement was easy to maintain before Brexit. When both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland were part of the EU, they automatically followed the same EU trade rules, which meant no checks were required.
However, a new arrangement was needed after Northern Ireland (along with the rest of the UK) left the EU. The EU has strict food rules and requires border checks when certain goods, such as milk and eggs, arrive from non-EU countries. Similar rules exist in other areas, such as medicine licensing.
To try to get round the problem the UK and the EU negotiated the Northern Ireland Protocol, which is now part of international law.
How does the Northern Ireland Protocol work? Rather than checks taking place along the Irish border, it was agreed any inspections and document checks would take place between Northern Ireland and Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) instead.
This was allowed after it was agreed that Northern Ireland would continue to follow EU rules on product standards (part of the EU's single market rules).
Checks on GB goods take place at Northern Ireland ports to make sure they comply with EU laws. However, this has led to criticism that a new trade border has effectively been created in the Irish Sea.
Unionists are strongly opposed to the checks because they don't want Northern Ireland to be treated differently to the rest of the UK.
Also, not all checks under the protocol have been fully implemented yet. For example, supermarkets had reduced paperwork required under a temporary "grace period". However, the UK decided to extend these periods - something the EU said was a breach of international law.
I know you genuinely believe that the EU is this benevolent institution that is all sweetness and light. And that your own country is the pantomime villain.
But-just to remind you what your latest stuff in bold is actually saying.
In return for GB (a non-EU country) being allowed to export goods to NI (another non-EU country), the EU expects the UK to bear the cost of ensuring that goods from a non-EU country do not cross into an EU country. Not the protectionist trading bloc. The ones outside it.
2 points:-
1. The Good Friday Agreement was supposed to ensure closer ties between both the UK and Ireland, and Northern Ireland with Ireland. As an example, there has previously been decades of free movement of goods exchanged between the UK and Ireland. Before we were in the EU, while we were both in the EU, and (on the UK side only) after the UK left the EU. So-which side are threatening the Good Friday agreement? I only see 1 country trying to limit trade
2. The EU has lots of borders with non-EU countries/states. French Guiana. Greenland. Northern Cyprus. The Faeroe Isles. Akrotiri and Dhekelia-the UK bases that are allowed to pretend they are in the EU. None of these places are expected to police borders with the EU. Or ensure that goods do not transfer. Do you think the EU expect Russia to pay to ensure Russian goods do not enter the EU?
I know you genuinely believe that the EU is this benevolent institution that is all sweetness and light. And that your own country is the pantomime villain.
But-just to remind you what your latest stuff in bold is actually saying.
In return for GB (a non-EU country) being allowed to export goods to NI (another non-EU country), the EU expects the UK to bear the cost of ensuring that goods from a non-EU country do not cross into an EU country. Not the protectionist trading bloc. The ones outside it.
2 points:-
1. The Good Friday Agreement was supposed to ensure closer ties between both the UK and Ireland, and Northern Ireland with Ireland. As an example, there has previously been decades of free movement of goods exchanged between the UK and Ireland. Before we were in the EU, while we were both in the EU, and (on the UK side only) after the UK left the EU. So-which side are threatening the Good Friday agreement? I only see 1 country trying to limit trade
2. The EU has lots of borders with non-EU countries/states. French Guiana. Greenland. Northern Cyprus. The Faeroe Isles. Akrotiri and Dhekelia-the UK bases that are allowed to pretend they are in the EU. None of these places are expected to police borders with the EU. Or ensure that goods do not transfer. Do you think the EU expect Russia to pay to ensure Russian goods do not enter the EU?
You sound like Boris or Mr Frost. Despite your outrage the protocol was our invention. We agreed to it. We have broken International Law. We chose to leave NI in the customs union/single market, and under The ECJ. Did we expect the EU to allow this without an expectation of NI having to adhere to any single market/customs union rules? Does having our cake and eating it ring any bells?
So on the one hand the vindictive EU allowed NI to remain in the single market/customs union, free of charge. They have allowed grace periods to allow us time to get ready for the changes. As it said in the article they have reduced the checks that we agreed to by 80%, reduced the paperwork that we agreed to by 50%, and resolved the medicines issue.
In return we have unilaterally extended the grace periods, purposely made little effort to comply with rules, and continually threaten them.
I dont have illusions about the EU, but I know where I stand on this dispute.
Surely the point is that whichever way you look at this, the EU have bent over backwards to help our side by reducing dramatically the number of checks and paperwork that we agreed to. You can quote as many examples as you want, but maybe those countries just werent as stupid as Boris. How many of your examples are not complying with agreements they have made with the EU.
It seems ridiculous to blame the other side, when we arent sticking to the agreement that we made.
The EU have been very flexible in respect of The Good Friday Agreement.
I know you genuinely believe that the EU is this benevolent institution that is all sweetness and light. And that your own country is the pantomime villain.
But-just to remind you what your latest stuff in bold is actually saying.
In return for GB (a non-EU country) being allowed to export goods to NI (another non-EU country), the EU expects the UK to bear the cost of ensuring that goods from a non-EU country do not cross into an EU country. Not the protectionist trading bloc. The ones outside it.
2 points:-
1. The Good Friday Agreement was supposed to ensure closer ties between both the UK and Ireland, and Northern Ireland with Ireland. As an example, there has previously been decades of free movement of goods exchanged between the UK and Ireland. Before we were in the EU, while we were both in the EU, and (on the UK side only) after the UK left the EU. So-which side are threatening the Good Friday agreement? I only see 1 country trying to limit trade
2. The EU has lots of borders with non-EU countries/states. French Guiana. Greenland. Northern Cyprus. The Faeroe Isles. Akrotiri and Dhekelia-the UK bases that are allowed to pretend they are in the EU. None of these places are expected to police borders with the EU. Or ensure that goods do not transfer. Do you think the EU expect Russia to pay to ensure Russian goods do not enter the EU?
You sound like Boris or Mr Frost. Despite your outrage the protocol was our invention. We agreed to it. We have broken International Law. We chose to leave NI in the customs union/single market, and under The ECJ. Did we expect the EU to allow this without an expectation of NI having to adhere to any single market/customs union rules? Does having our cake and eating it ring any bells?
So on the one hand the vindictive EU allowed NI to remain in the single market/customs union, free of charge. They have allowed grace periods to allow us time to get ready for the changes. As it said in the article they have reduced the checks that we agreed to by 80%, reduced the paperwork that we agreed to by 50%, and resolved the medicines issue.
In return we have unilaterally extended the grace periods, purposely made little effort to comply with rules, and continually threaten them.
I dont have illusions about the EU, but I know where I stand on this dispute.
Surely the point is that whichever way you look at this, the EU have bent over backwards to help our side by reducing dramatically the number of checks and paperwork that we agreed to. You can quote as many examples as you want, but maybe those countries just werent as stupid as Boris. How many of your examples are not complying with agreements they have made with the EU.
It seems ridiculous to blame the other side, when we arent sticking to the agreement that we made.
The EU have been very flexible in respect of The Good Friday Agreement.
Never going to agree.
You look at the past.
I look at a future where Northern Ireland cannot be used as a pawn in this way. It is a poor short-term solution, that may have been no less poor than the short-term alternatives.
But it is not a long-term solution. And, however much you point fingers at a deal that you believe is all the fault of only 1 of the negotiating parties, that remains the case.
Boris and Frost foolishly try to blame an agreement purely at the door of one of two parties to an agreement. As do you. And you genuinely do not realise that that places you in the same position as Boris. Not me.
I believe both sides need to move forward to a long-term solution. You believe that we can rely on the EU, and the EU alone, to provide a fair solution. I don't believe that for precisely the same reasons that I would not trust the UK alone to provide the solution. Boris or any other UK PM. Although more so Boris.
I know you genuinely believe that the EU is this benevolent institution that is all sweetness and light. And that your own country is the pantomime villain.
But-just to remind you what your latest stuff in bold is actually saying.
In return for GB (a non-EU country) being allowed to export goods to NI (another non-EU country), the EU expects the UK to bear the cost of ensuring that goods from a non-EU country do not cross into an EU country. Not the protectionist trading bloc. The ones outside it.
2 points:-
1. The Good Friday Agreement was supposed to ensure closer ties between both the UK and Ireland, and Northern Ireland with Ireland. As an example, there has previously been decades of free movement of goods exchanged between the UK and Ireland. Before we were in the EU, while we were both in the EU, and (on the UK side only) after the UK left the EU. So-which side are threatening the Good Friday agreement? I only see 1 country trying to limit trade
2. The EU has lots of borders with non-EU countries/states. French Guiana. Greenland. Northern Cyprus. The Faeroe Isles. Akrotiri and Dhekelia-the UK bases that are allowed to pretend they are in the EU. None of these places are expected to police borders with the EU. Or ensure that goods do not transfer. Do you think the EU expect Russia to pay to ensure Russian goods do not enter the EU?
You sound like Boris or Mr Frost. Despite your outrage the protocol was our invention. We agreed to it. We have broken International Law. We chose to leave NI in the customs union/single market, and under The ECJ. Did we expect the EU to allow this without an expectation of NI having to adhere to any single market/customs union rules? Does having our cake and eating it ring any bells?
So on the one hand the vindictive EU allowed NI to remain in the single market/customs union, free of charge. They have allowed grace periods to allow us time to get ready for the changes. As it said in the article they have reduced the checks that we agreed to by 80%, reduced the paperwork that we agreed to by 50%, and resolved the medicines issue.
In return we have unilaterally extended the grace periods, purposely made little effort to comply with rules, and continually threaten them.
I dont have illusions about the EU, but I know where I stand on this dispute.
Surely the point is that whichever way you look at this, the EU have bent over backwards to help our side by reducing dramatically the number of checks and paperwork that we agreed to. You can quote as many examples as you want, but maybe those countries just werent as stupid as Boris. How many of your examples are not complying with agreements they have made with the EU.
It seems ridiculous to blame the other side, when we arent sticking to the agreement that we made.
The EU have been very flexible in respect of The Good Friday Agreement.
Never going to agree.
You look at the past.
I look at a future where Northern Ireland cannot be used as a pawn in this way. It is a poor short-term solution, that may have been no less poor than the short-term alternatives.
But it is not a long-term solution. And, however much you point fingers at a deal that you believe is all the fault of only 1 of the negotiating parties, that remains the case.
Boris and Frost foolishly try to blame an agreement purely at the door of one of two parties to an agreement. As do you. And you genuinely do not realise that that places you in the same position as Boris. Not me.
I believe both sides need to move forward to a long-term solution. You believe that we can rely on the EU, and the EU alone, to provide a fair solution. I don't believe that for precisely the same reasons that I would not trust the UK alone to provide the solution. Boris or any other UK PM. Although more so Boris.
Theresa Mays backstop had no border in the Irish Sea. Boris didnt want the backstop. He invented the protocol. The protocol led to the current difficulties.
You seem to conveniently ignore lots of facts.
The Unionists are against the border, not checks. Some checks were carried out during the time we were members.
You seem to be saying that you think that the EU should still be treating us as though we were still members.
To say I am looking at the past makes as much sense as The Met saying they dont investigate retrospectively. Of course I am looking at the past, because thats when the agreement was made.
All the NI difficulties stem from the Irish Sea border, not from NI being used as a pawn.
If the border is a short term solution, how do you remove it?
After the EU has bent over backwards with concessions on paperwork, checks, sausages, and medicines, what do you see as the biggest problems that remain?
In news that will surprise nobody, Boris wants to fix the focus on to 1 of his "triumphs" (getting Brexit "done"), and away from his many lies and deceits.
This is just that. Nothing more. Whisper it quietly-the vast majority of EU Laws are entirely sensible.
Then there is the simple fact that, when it comes to Exports, you are hamstrung by the rules of where you want to export to. Imports? Not so much. Provided those Imports cannot be exported to places that have rules. Because then you are back to square one.
There is going to be lots of noise. And no action. As usual. And probably 1 token change to fool the people. My money is on an attack on the European Court of Human Rights. Which (unlike the European Court) is not really part of the EU machine.
PS-just a thought. If Brexit really is "done" why is he still banging on about the need for change?
In news that will surprise nobody, Boris wants to fix the focus on to 1 of his "triumphs" (getting Brexit "done"), and away from his many lies and deceits.
This is just that. Nothing more. Whisper it quietly-the vast majority of EU Laws are entirely sensible.
Then there is the simple fact that, when it comes to Exports, you are hamstrung by the rules of where you want to export to. Imports? Not so much. Provided those Imports cannot be exported to places that have rules. Because then you are back to square one.
There is going to be lots of noise. And no action. As usual. And probably 1 token change to fool the people. My money is on an attack on the European Court of Human Rights. Which (unlike the European Court) is not really part of the EU machine.
PS-just a thought. If Brexit really is "done" why is he still banging on about the need for change?
The new Brexit Freedoms Bill proves Parliament isn’t taking back control from Brussels, but ministers are
In news that will surprise nobody, Boris wants to fix the focus on to 1 of his "triumphs" (getting Brexit "done"), and away from his many lies and deceits.
This is just that. Nothing more. Whisper it quietly-the vast majority of EU Laws are entirely sensible.
Then there is the simple fact that, when it comes to Exports, you are hamstrung by the rules of where you want to export to. Imports? Not so much. Provided those Imports cannot be exported to places that have rules. Because then you are back to square one.
There is going to be lots of noise. And no action. As usual. And probably 1 token change to fool the people. My money is on an attack on the European Court of Human Rights. Which (unlike the European Court) is not really part of the EU machine.
PS-just a thought. If Brexit really is "done" why is he still banging on about the need for change?
Three of the most ridiculous Brexit 'benefits' the government is celebrating
In news that will surprise nobody, Boris wants to fix the focus on to 1 of his "triumphs" (getting Brexit "done"), and away from his many lies and deceits.
This is just that. Nothing more. Whisper it quietly-the vast majority of EU Laws are entirely sensible.
Then there is the simple fact that, when it comes to Exports, you are hamstrung by the rules of where you want to export to. Imports? Not so much. Provided those Imports cannot be exported to places that have rules. Because then you are back to square one.
There is going to be lots of noise. And no action. As usual. And probably 1 token change to fool the people. My money is on an attack on the European Court of Human Rights. Which (unlike the European Court) is not really part of the EU machine.
PS-just a thought. If Brexit really is "done" why is he still banging on about the need for change?
TV tonight: the truth of Brexit’s economic nightmare
The Decade the Rich Won 9pm, BBC Two The second half of this undersold documentary continues to unpick what has happened to the UK economy since the 2008 financial crisis – picking up with a little thing called Brexit. Recalling a not-so-merry-go-round of resignations, risky decisions, shock statistics, tax scandals and billionaires blasted into space while cleaners have their wages capped, talking heads include Philip Hammond, George Osborne, Miatta Fahnbulleh, Margaret Hodge and Jeremy Corbyn. Hollie
In news that will surprise nobody, Boris wants to fix the focus on to 1 of his "triumphs" (getting Brexit "done"), and away from his many lies and deceits.
This is just that. Nothing more. Whisper it quietly-the vast majority of EU Laws are entirely sensible.
Then there is the simple fact that, when it comes to Exports, you are hamstrung by the rules of where you want to export to. Imports? Not so much. Provided those Imports cannot be exported to places that have rules. Because then you are back to square one.
There is going to be lots of noise. And no action. As usual. And probably 1 token change to fool the people. My money is on an attack on the European Court of Human Rights. Which (unlike the European Court) is not really part of the EU machine.
PS-just a thought. If Brexit really is "done" why is he still banging on about the need for change?
Boris Johnson scraps Brexit bonfire of EU red tape in favour of net zero rules
The news that the Prime Minister had spared EU rules from the chop in favour of his green agenda emerged just a day after he promised to cut a billion pounds worth of regulation carried over into UK law and published a document called The Benefits of Brexit: How the UK is taking advantage of leaving the EU.
Fruit Pastilles will be made in Czech Republic and Toffee Crisp bars in Poland as Nestle closesits Newcastle factory with loss of 475 jobs
The closure of a Nestle factory near Newcastle has been confirmed with familiar brands such as Fruit Pastilles and Jelly Tots all slated to be produced abroad.
Fruit Pastilles will be made in Czech Republic and Toffee Crisp bars in Poland as Nestle closesits Newcastle factory with loss of 475 jobs
The closure of a Nestle factory near Newcastle has been confirmed with familiar brands such as Fruit Pastilles and Jelly Tots all slated to be produced abroad.
The simple fact is that international companies relocate to wherever the profit is.
The costs of manufacturing the goods will drop substantially, simply because of lower wage costs, lower cost of land, and assistance from the relevant Governments.
This has been happening for years. It was happening before Brexit. It was even happening before Minimum Wage.
Why else would a Swiss Company produce goods all around the World. But very little in Switzerland?
Fruit Pastilles will be made in Czech Republic and Toffee Crisp bars in Poland as Nestle closesits Newcastle factory with loss of 475 jobs
The closure of a Nestle factory near Newcastle has been confirmed with familiar brands such as Fruit Pastilles and Jelly Tots all slated to be produced abroad.
The simple fact is that international companies relocate to wherever the profit is.
The costs of manufacturing the goods will drop substantially, simply because of lower wage costs, lower cost of land, and assistance from the relevant Governments.
This has been happening for years. It was happening before Brexit. It was even happening before Minimum Wage.
Why else would a Swiss Company produce goods all around the World. But very little in Switzerland?
The unions are arguing that the factory was profitable. They are also arguing that the company will face significant costs shipping the finished products back to the UK to be consumed.
Comments
The protocol allows lorries to deliver goods without having paperwork and goods checked when they cross the border from Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland.
This arrangement was easy to maintain before Brexit. When both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland were part of the EU, they automatically followed the same EU trade rules, which meant no checks were required.
However, a new arrangement was needed after Northern Ireland (along with the rest of the UK) left the EU. The EU has strict food rules and requires border checks when certain goods, such as milk and eggs, arrive from non-EU countries. Similar rules exist in other areas, such as medicine licensing.
To try to get round the problem the UK and the EU negotiated the Northern Ireland Protocol, which is now part of international law.
How does the Northern Ireland Protocol work?
Rather than checks taking place along the Irish border, it was agreed any inspections and document checks would take place between Northern Ireland and Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) instead.
This was allowed after it was agreed that Northern Ireland would continue to follow EU rules on product standards (part of the EU's single market rules).
Checks on GB goods take place at Northern Ireland ports to make sure they comply with EU laws. However, this has led to criticism that a new trade border has effectively been created in the Irish Sea.
Unionists are strongly opposed to the checks because they don't want Northern Ireland to be treated differently to the rest of the UK.
Also, not all checks under the protocol have been fully implemented yet. For example, supermarkets had reduced paperwork required under a temporary "grace period". However, the UK decided to extend these periods - something the EU said was a breach of international law.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-53724381
But-just to remind you what your latest stuff in bold is actually saying.
In return for GB (a non-EU country) being allowed to export goods to NI (another non-EU country), the EU expects the UK to bear the cost of ensuring that goods from a non-EU country do not cross into an EU country. Not the protectionist trading bloc. The ones outside it.
2 points:-
1. The Good Friday Agreement was supposed to ensure closer ties between both the UK and Ireland, and Northern Ireland with Ireland. As an example, there has previously been decades of free movement of goods exchanged between the UK and Ireland. Before we were in the EU, while we were both in the EU, and (on the UK side only) after the UK left the EU. So-which side are threatening the Good Friday agreement? I only see 1 country trying to limit trade
2. The EU has lots of borders with non-EU countries/states. French Guiana. Greenland. Northern Cyprus. The Faeroe Isles. Akrotiri and Dhekelia-the UK bases that are allowed to pretend they are in the EU. None of these places are expected to police borders with the EU. Or ensure that goods do not transfer. Do you think the EU expect Russia to pay to ensure Russian goods do not enter the EU?
Despite your outrage the protocol was our invention.
We agreed to it.
We have broken International Law.
We chose to leave NI in the customs union/single market, and under The ECJ.
Did we expect the EU to allow this without an expectation of NI having to adhere to any single market/customs union rules?
Does having our cake and eating it ring any bells?
So on the one hand the vindictive EU allowed NI to remain in the single market/customs union, free of charge.
They have allowed grace periods to allow us time to get ready for the changes.
As it said in the article they have reduced the checks that we agreed to by 80%, reduced the paperwork that we agreed to by 50%, and resolved the medicines issue.
In return we have unilaterally extended the grace periods, purposely made little effort to comply with rules, and continually threaten them.
I dont have illusions about the EU, but I know where I stand on this dispute.
Surely the point is that whichever way you look at this, the EU have bent over backwards to help our side by reducing dramatically the number of checks and paperwork that we agreed to.
You can quote as many examples as you want, but maybe those countries just werent as stupid as Boris.
How many of your examples are not complying with agreements they have made with the EU.
It seems ridiculous to blame the other side, when we arent sticking to the agreement that we made.
The EU have been very flexible in respect of The Good Friday Agreement.
You look at the past.
I look at a future where Northern Ireland cannot be used as a pawn in this way. It is a poor short-term solution, that may have been no less poor than the short-term alternatives.
But it is not a long-term solution. And, however much you point fingers at a deal that you believe is all the fault of only 1 of the negotiating parties, that remains the case.
Boris and Frost foolishly try to blame an agreement purely at the door of one of two parties to an agreement. As do you. And you genuinely do not realise that that places you in the same position as Boris. Not me.
I believe both sides need to move forward to a long-term solution. You believe that we can rely on the EU, and the EU alone, to provide a fair solution. I don't believe that for precisely the same reasons that I would not trust the UK alone to provide the solution. Boris or any other UK PM. Although more so Boris.
Boris didnt want the backstop.
He invented the protocol.
The protocol led to the current difficulties.
You seem to conveniently ignore lots of facts.
The Unionists are against the border, not checks.
Some checks were carried out during the time we were members.
You seem to be saying that you think that the EU should still be treating us as though we were still members.
To say I am looking at the past makes as much sense as The Met saying they dont investigate retrospectively.
Of course I am looking at the past, because thats when the agreement was made.
All the NI difficulties stem from the Irish Sea border, not from NI being used as a pawn.
You have said that there has been no divergence on rules regarding foodstuffs.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/topstories/benefits-of-brexit-paper-to-set-out-plans-for-future-deregulation/ar-AATfkQ0?ocid=msedgntp
If the border is a short term solution, how do you remove it?
After the EU has bent over backwards with concessions on paperwork, checks, sausages, and medicines, what do you see as the biggest problems that remain?
This is just that. Nothing more. Whisper it quietly-the vast majority of EU Laws are entirely sensible.
Then there is the simple fact that, when it comes to Exports, you are hamstrung by the rules of where you want to export to. Imports? Not so much. Provided those Imports cannot be exported to places that have rules. Because then you are back to square one.
There is going to be lots of noise. And no action. As usual. And probably 1 token change to fool the people. My money is on an attack on the European Court of Human Rights. Which (unlike the European Court) is not really part of the EU machine.
PS-just a thought. If Brexit really is "done" why is he still banging on about the need for change?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/the-new-brexit-freedoms-bill-proves-parliament-isn-t-taking-back-control-from-brussels-but-ministers-are/ar-AATjYor?ocid=msedgntp
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/three-of-the-most-ridiculous-brexit-benefits-the-government-is-celebrating/ar-AATkK9M?ocid=msedgntp
The Decade the Rich Won
9pm, BBC Two
The second half of this undersold documentary continues to unpick what has happened to the UK economy since the 2008 financial crisis – picking up with a little thing called Brexit. Recalling a not-so-merry-go-round of resignations, risky decisions, shock statistics, tax scandals and billionaires blasted into space while cleaners have their wages capped, talking heads include Philip Hammond, George Osborne, Miatta Fahnbulleh, Margaret Hodge and Jeremy Corbyn. Hollie
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/tv/tv-tonight-the-truth-of-brexit-s-economic-nightmare/ar-AATlvgH?ocid=msedgntp
The news that the Prime Minister had spared EU rules from the chop in favour of his green agenda emerged just a day after he promised to cut a billion pounds worth of regulation carried over into UK law and published a document called The Benefits of Brexit: How the UK is taking advantage of leaving the EU.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/boris-johnson-scraps-brexit-bonfire-of-eu-red-tape-in-favour-of-net-zero-rules/ar-AATmweU?ocid=msedgntp
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brexit-from-dover-lorry-queues-to-will-the-uk-rejoin-the-eu-7-key-questions-answered/ar-AATmcsS?ocid=msedgntp
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/brexit-impact-fact-checked-how-uk-s-departure-from-eu-is-really-going-two-years-on/ar-AATkgBW?ocid=msedgntp
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/uk-s-brexit-replacement-for-eu-regional-funding-cuts-payments-by-billions/ar-AATmjN4?ocid=msedgntp
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/brexit-is-one-of-history-s-great-own-goals-say-architects/ar-AATkJMO?ocid=msedgntp
The closure of a Nestle factory near Newcastle has been confirmed with familiar brands such as Fruit Pastilles and Jelly Tots all slated to be produced abroad.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10469521/Nestle-closing-Newcastle-factory-loss-475-jobs-production-set-Eastern-Europe.html
The simple fact is that international companies relocate to wherever the profit is.
The costs of manufacturing the goods will drop substantially, simply because of lower wage costs, lower cost of land, and assistance from the relevant Governments.
This has been happening for years. It was happening before Brexit. It was even happening before Minimum Wage.
Why else would a Swiss Company produce goods all around the World. But very little in Switzerland?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/there-s-no-brexit-conspiracy-here-says-liz-truss-as-dup-halts-irish-sea-border-checks/ar-AATpnRG?ocid=msedgntp
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/there-is-a-way-to-limit-brexit-damage-rejoin-the-single-market/ar-AATpaKr?ocid=msedgntp
They are also arguing that the company will face significant costs shipping the finished products back to the UK to be consumed.