The EU loves to talk about the need for what it calls a "level playing field". So-in its mind-the fact that the UK could change workers' rights (even though it has not) is enough to impose trade barriers. Because the UK might (in the future) secure an unfair advantage.
The most fundamental workers right is pay. The Minimum Wage is crucial to that. You might think that the EU ensures a level playing field. Think again.
EU Countries with a higher Minimum Wage than the UK? 1. Tiny Luxembourg. EU countries with broadly similar Minimum Wages? 5. Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands
EU countries with a Minimum Wage less than half that of the UK?12. Bulgaria's Minimum Wage is less than 1/4 of the UK's. Many of these countries have new plants for UK companies-Czechia, Poland, Portugal and the like.
EU countries with no Minimum Wage? 6. Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Italy.
Level playing fields work both ways.
There are a number of ways of comparing playing fields. The EU would be stupid if they gave no consideration to us gaining a trade advantage by reducing regulation.
Workers' rights: Tory post-Brexit plans would 'sledgehammer' protections
THE Tory Government is looking at ripping up worker protections enshrined in EU law as ministers plan to change labour markets after Brexit.
The business department, with approval from Downing Street, is planning deregulatory measures including an end to the 48-hour working week and tweaks to breaks and overtime rules.
According to the Financial Times, the Government wants to stop the 48-hour limit, not include overtime pay when calculating holiday pay entitlements and no longer require businesses to report working hours in a move which could save around £1 billion.
The EU can take into account various of these things. But it is not as simple as that. Things never are. For every action there is a reaction. Trade works like that. Particularly international trade.
The thing is this. The EU is very important to UK trade. And so is the UK to EU trade. The EU can keep banging on about the integrity of its precious Single Market. But if it does, there will be consequences. Those consequences will be damaging to both the UK and the EU. And EU member countries' electorates will suffer. And vote accordingly.
It is open to the UK to impose its own standards on EU imports. Using exactly the same criteria as the EU. Preventing cheap imports from reduced worker rights. For example, the Minimum Wage in Bulgaria is less than 2 Euros an hour. Labour costs in Czechia are 50% less than the UK, even though they have a highly-skilled workforce.
Will that be wise? Maybe not. But it will become necessary. Because the UK would have no choice but to adopt the same protectionist stance. And this will be the EU's doing.
Brexit is undoubtedly a factor. But there are others. HGV driving has been a ticking time bomb for many years.
HGV drivers are often paid little more than minimum wage. When you add in the poor lifestyle, poor work-life balance, and the fact that it costs £thousands to get a Licence, little wonder that UK drivers have shunned the job for decades.
We knew we were leaving the EU years ago. Yet UK logistics companies have done little or nothing-unless you count putting up their prices. Where was the planning for the inevitable change?
Add in the facts that we are on the outer edge of Europe, an island, Covid, and the fact that every European country has a major shortage of HGV drivers.
But much easier just to blame it on Brexit....
Good article.
The Guardian view on Brexit diplomacy: thaw, not Frost
He is also replicating Mr Johnson’s approach to Brexit before the deal was done. But the treaty is settled. The task now is to rebuild relations that were strained in the years of belligerence before withdrawal was confirmed. Lord Frost is re-enacting battles that the prime minister has fought once before, believing they ended in victory. Under that delusion he is faithfully serving his boss, but not his country.
It wasn't. As usual from the Grauniad, it was pro-EU and anti-UK.
The opposite from you then?
The deal Boris achieved was terrible.
Whose fault was that then?
But it is also unworkable in the longer term.
Why would you say that?
As things stand, there are loads of trade barriers between the EU and the UK. But they all only go the 1 way.
That is incorrect. Boris left NI in the SM/CU. He said that this gives NI the best of both worlds. Many people disagree. Therefore the trade barriers go both ways. Everyone one knows that we were faced with a choice. We could have chosen a close relationship and minimised friction. Unfortunately we wanted the penny and the bun. We didnt want the close relationship, or the friction.
No-one, not even the EU, can seriously believe this will continue in the longer term.
Whatever this is hasnt started properly yet, and he has delayed the ending of the grace periods until next year.
Either the EU will treat the UK as a trade ally, or there will inevitably be reciprocal trade barriers. Why should the UK not adopt the same protectionist stance that the EU maintains? Northern Ireland shows how ridiculous this is-Ireland is free to purchase goods from the UK on whatever terms it chooses. But the reverse is not true.
The reverse is as per the Boris agreement.
This ridiculous state of affairs was caused by a mixture of the EU trying to punish the UK for leaving,
I didnt expect you to resort to this nonsense. We started with the backstop and no Irish Sea border The EU agreed to that. Boris preferred the protocol, and an Irish Sea border as an alternative. The EU agreed to that. To make it work we had to leave NI in the SM/CU despite the fact we left. The EU agreed to that. The EU have suggested that a veterinary agreement would reduce border checks by 80%. We dont want that.
and Boris's political need to "get Brexit done". But it is not going to stay like that for ever.
They get a vote in Stormont, to get out of the protocol. What is the alternative?
I find arguments that lack facts, evidence, or logic rather silly. We could have done a deal with less friction, but we chose not to. To my knowledge the EU have not come up with a raft of new rules, just to punish us for leaving. They are only implementing rules in respect of third countries, that were applicable while we were members. We knew the rules. How can we leave, then expect these rules not to apply to us? I would agree that this is complicated by the fact that only part of the UK has effectively left. It was our choice to leave NI in. A typical example is the silly sausage war. While we were members the EU didnt allow exports of chilled meats from third countries. So why on earth would we think we can export sausages to NI after we left?
There are plenty of facts. You just refuse to see them.
What facts have you got that prove that the EU set out to punish us for leaving?
You persist inb believinbg that, where 2 parties agree to a terrible deal, all the fault rests with just 1 of those 2 parties.
The EU arent complaining. Well they are, but only about us not fully implementing what was agreed.
You believe that anyone who believes this is somehow pro-Uk, and anti-EU.
That is likely to be the case, where someone puts forward the unfounded punishment argument.
you believe that any major nation (not the UK, any major nation) will allow a raft of trade barriers tobe erected, and do nothing in retaliation.
I dont believe that the trade barriers have been erected, just to punish our country. I believe that these barriers were already in place. We were aware of them. Had the opportunity to negotiate a way around them. Chose not to. Everyone knew that the amount of friction would be directly related to the closeness of the relationship that we chose. So we chose the amount of friction.
You have made literally thousands of posts, every single one of which attacks the UK position and/or praises the EU.
Not strictly true. The problems in NI were created by the deal Boris agreed. The Theresa May backstop did not include an Irish Sea border. She was also intent on agreeing a much closer relationship with the EU. While still being able to negotiate our own trade deals. Boris created the chaos.
The EU can take into account various of these things. But it is not as simple as that. Things never are. For every action there is a reaction. Trade works like that. Particularly international trade.
The thing is this. The EU is very important to UK trade. And so is the UK to EU trade. The EU can keep banging on about the integrity of its precious Single Market. But if it does, there will be consequences. Those consequences will be damaging to both the UK and the EU. And EU member countries' electorates will suffer. And vote accordingly.
It is open to the UK to impose its own standards on EU imports. Using exactly the same criteria as the EU. Preventing cheap imports from reduced worker rights. For example, the Minimum Wage in Bulgaria is less than 2 Euros an hour. Labour costs in Czechia are 50% less than the UK, even though they have a highly-skilled workforce.
Will that be wise? Maybe not. But it will become necessary. Because the UK would have no choice but to adopt the same protectionist stance. And this will be the EU's doing.
Brexit: What is a level playing field?
Did either side win? Both sides can claim to have got what they wanted from the deal.
It contains stricter level playing field conditions than in other recent trade agreements signed by the EU. So, the EU has created strong protections for the single market.
But the UK has the right to break away from EU rules if it chooses to do so, and there is no role in enforcing the deal for the European Court of Justice. And that meets the UK demand for sovereignty.
That means a future UK government, which thinks market access is more important than the current government's notion of sovereignty, could choose to interpret the deal in a different way.
So, as a political issue, it's not going to go away.
The EU can take into account various of these things. But it is not as simple as that. Things never are. For every action there is a reaction. Trade works like that. Particularly international trade.
The thing is this. The EU is very important to UK trade. And so is the UK to EU trade. The EU can keep banging on about the integrity of its precious Single Market. But if it does, there will be consequences. Those consequences will be damaging to both the UK and the EU. And EU member countries' electorates will suffer. And vote accordingly.
It is open to the UK to impose its own standards on EU imports. Using exactly the same criteria as the EU. Preventing cheap imports from reduced worker rights. For example, the Minimum Wage in Bulgaria is less than 2 Euros an hour. Labour costs in Czechia are 50% less than the UK, even though they have a highly-skilled workforce.
Will that be wise? Maybe not. But it will become necessary. Because the UK would have no choice but to adopt the same protectionist stance. And this will be the EU's doing.
Perhaps we just dont know the rules?
Airlines and travel firms face millions in claims after applying wrong passport rules
Thousands of travellers are set to claim millions of pounds from airlines and holiday firms after being wrongly denied trips to Europe.
Since the UK left the European Union, The Independent has repeatedly warned the government that it is misrepresenting post-Brexit passport validity rules.
Two European Union rules for “third country nationals” apply. Travellers are told: “You will need a passport valid for at least three months after the date you intend to leave the EU country you are visiting [and] which was issued within the previous 10 years.”
But the UK government claims otherwise, and many travel firms have followed its online advice.
But the European Commission has confirmed to The Independent that the government’s interpretation is wrong. The passport must simply meet the two conditions independently.
The government itself could face claims from travellers who paid hundreds of pounds for unnecessary rush renewals, because the online advice at gov.uk wrongly asserted that their passports were too old. In addition, firms that wrongly turned passengers away after following inaccurate official advice may seek recompense from the government.
Britain's biggest holiday company, Tui, has now changed its policy to comply with European law – but only after mistakenly denying boarding to a significant number of passengers.
Vanessa Pritchard-Wilkes is one of many holidaymakers wrongly denied boarding this summer. Last Friday at Birmingham airport she was turned away from a flight to Tenerife by Tui staff, even though her passport met the EU’s rules on validity.
She and her husband, Chris, had spent more than £1,600 on a holiday. The couple checked in without a problem at Birmingham airport, but at the departure gate they were told they could not travel because her passport was invalid for travel to Spain.
With a passport issued less than 10 years ago and valid for more than three months beyond the day they were due to fly home, Ms Pritchard-Wilkes was perfectly entitled to fly to any European Union nation.
But she says she was told by staff that if she had been allowed to fly, “Tui would have been fined and we would have been kept at the airport and flown home on the next available flight.”
Ms Pritchard-Wilkes, a housing professional from Sutton Coldfield, then spent £177 obtaining a new passport – which was not legally necessary – and finally travelled out to her holiday in the Canary Islands four days late.
A spokesperson for Tui said: “Following new information provided, we can confirm that we have now changed our policy accordingly. Customers will not be denied boarding on the basis that their passport needs to meet both conditions dependently.” Under air passengers’ rights rules, a properly documented passenger who is denied boarding on a flight to Europe is entitled to either £220 or £350 in cash, depending on distance, plus a full refund of the entire fare.
Brexit is undoubtedly a factor. But there are others. HGV driving has been a ticking time bomb for many years.
HGV drivers are often paid little more than minimum wage. When you add in the poor lifestyle, poor work-life balance, and the fact that it costs £thousands to get a Licence, little wonder that UK drivers have shunned the job for decades.
We knew we were leaving the EU years ago. Yet UK logistics companies have done little or nothing-unless you count putting up their prices. Where was the planning for the inevitable change?
Add in the facts that we are on the outer edge of Europe, an island, Covid, and the fact that every European country has a major shortage of HGV drivers.
But much easier just to blame it on Brexit....
Good article.
The Guardian view on Brexit diplomacy: thaw, not Frost
He is also replicating Mr Johnson’s approach to Brexit before the deal was done. But the treaty is settled. The task now is to rebuild relations that were strained in the years of belligerence before withdrawal was confirmed. Lord Frost is re-enacting battles that the prime minister has fought once before, believing they ended in victory. Under that delusion he is faithfully serving his boss, but not his country.
It wasn't. As usual from the Grauniad, it was pro-EU and anti-UK.
The deal Boris achieved was terrible. But it is also unworkable in the longer term. As things stand, there are loads of trade barriers between the EU and the UK. But they all only go the 1 way.
No-one, not even the EU, can seriously believe this will continue in the longer term. Either the EU will treat the UK as a trade ally, or there will inevitably be reciprocal trade barriers. Why should the UK not adopt the same protectionist stance that the EU maintains? Northern Ireland shows how ridiculous this is-Ireland is free to purchase goods from the UK on whatever terms it chooses. But the reverse is not true.
This ridiculous state of affairs was caused by a mixture of the EU trying to punish the UK for leaving, and Boris's political need to "get Brexit done". But it is not going to stay like that for ever.
Wow, a real Brexit benefit?
Brexit victory as empty Wetherspoons pint glasses to be stamped with crown logo
Brexiters have today declared victory as Wetherspoons pint glasses – rendered empty and useless by Brexit-related beer shortages – will now be marked with the crown logo.
Brexit triumph as Crown Stamp returns to pint glasses after bonfire of EU rules
“We will remove the EU-derived prohibition on printing the Crown Stamp on pint glasses and allowing publicans and restaurants to voluntarily embrace this important symbol on their glassware, should they choose to do so,” the Government said.
It added that there would be a review on retained EU restrictions on selling in pounds and ounces.
After Brexit took legal effect on Dec 31, the CE mark was replaced with the UKCA capacity verification mark, which will continue to be displayed on new pint glasses.
British border controls are “unlikely” to be as tough as the EU's, even when the UK does finally introduce delayed customs checks on imports from the Continent in July next year, he said.
He said Britain's new border would be lighter touch with fewer physical checks
He said: “We do not have to replicate everything the European Union does. We intend to have a world class border by 2025.”
An EU diplomattold The Telegraph: “Lord Frost has just saved Christmas for EU exporters: Brexit shields them from UK competition in the EU's single market while they still get unfettered access to the UK market – at least for a few more months.
“You can hear the champagne popping on this side of the channel. EU exporters hope for many more delays.”
There was no legal requirement to stop using glasses already marked with the Crown Stamp, which would have the word pint emblazoned above the royal symbol. Its loss was soon added to a string of Brexiteer grievances such as the ditching of pounds and ounces, and the replacing of blue passports with EU red. There were fears that the Crown Stamp would fade into history but it was ultimately saved by Brexit.
Always been fascinated by the British obsession with pounds and ounces.
The full name of the "British" pound (lb) is the Avoirdupois Pound. It is French
Going back to them is likely to cause as much disruption as going metric in the first place, and the same people will probably whinge about it. Never mind we are going to have a world class border soon. Although I am not sure when soon is likely to be.
Always been fascinated by the British obsession with pounds and ounces.
The full name of the "British" pound (lb) is the Avoirdupois Pound. It is French
Going back to them is likely to cause as much disruption as going metric in the first place, and the same people will probably whinge about it. Never mind we are going to have a world class border soon. Although I am not sure when soon is likely to be.
It is all symbolic.
We have never stopped ordering beer in pints, and lots of US-led goods remain in pounds. People have always over-estimated how much the EU has really affected our daily life. Both when we were in it, and now we are out of it.
As an example, the reason we do not have a "world class border" is simple. We lack a plan and a budget.
The "Aukus" debate is quite interesting from an EU perspective. The French are blaming the UK/US for "stabbing them in the back" (meaning putting our interests ahead of theirs), whereas the reality is rather different.
The EU has various strengths as a trading bloc. But the world (and particularly the US) are not comfortable with the increased military/foreign policy alignment within the EU. France is no enemy of China-it is probably about as close as we are. But Germany is extremely close to China. Has been for decades-far closer than any other European nation. Which is precisely why US/Australia want a presence not involving the EU. Not to be anti-Chinese. But to be an independent voice.
Always been fascinated by the British obsession with pounds and ounces.
The full name of the "British" pound (lb) is the Avoirdupois Pound. It is French
NewsNight featured a report on the protocol last night.
They also finished up with a serious report on the metric martyrs. They are seeking pardons for them. Unbelievable, it could only happen in the UK.
I don't understand why there is a need for any fuss.
Keep putting everything in kilograms-also allow everyone (if they wish) to use pounds as well. At least then people would know why so much stuff is sold in 454 gram packs. It was a ridiculous state of affairs while we were in-and equally mad now we are out. Did it really need to be a criminal offence?
Always been fascinated by the British obsession with pounds and ounces.
The full name of the "British" pound (lb) is the Avoirdupois Pound. It is French
NewsNight featured a report on the protocol last night.
They also finished up with a serious report on the metric martyrs. They are seeking pardons for them. Unbelievable, it could only happen in the UK.
I don't understand why there is a need for any fuss.
Keep putting everything in kilograms-also allow everyone (if they wish) to use pounds as well. At least then people would know why so much stuff is sold in 454 gram packs. It was a ridiculous state of affairs while we were in-and equally mad now we are out. Did it really need to be a criminal offence?
There was a guy in Sunderland that was prosecuted over a bunch of bananas, he was one of the 4 or 5 that were ever charged. His daughter was being interviewed, as the poor s0d died aged 39. His daughter blames the stress caused by the prosecution. They want Boris to give him a posthumous pardon. It could only matter in the UK, if you were buying a bunch of bananas, who cares if they are weighed in pounds or kilos?
There are plenty of facts. You just refuse to see them.
You persist inb believinbg that, where 2 parties agree to a terrible deal, all the fault rests with just 1 of those 2 parties.
You believe that anyone who believes this is somehow pro-Uk, and anti-EU.
you believe that any major nation (not the UK, any major nation) will allow a raft of trade barriers tobe erected, and do nothing in retaliation.
You have made literally thousands of posts, every single one of which attacks the UK position and/or praises the EU.
Go live there.
If you just consider facts. WTO rules demand a border between different customs territories. So even if we ripped up the deal with the EU, we still require a border. The border has to be a land border in Ireland, or in the Irish Sea. Therefore the Irish Sea. Avoiding the land border, means that NI remains in the SM/CU. Therefore the Irish Sea border separates Great Britain from the EU/SM. Close alignment means less friction, divergence means more. We chose to diverge. Surely the EU are entitled to decide which products need to be checked when entering their SM. Would we allow them to dictate which products we must check, or not, on our borders? I dont think so. The DUP are making various threats, unless the protocol is ripped up. What is the alternative if it was ripped up?
How could we remove NI from the SM/CU? Where could we move the border to?
The EU have offered a means of reducing checks by 80%. We are not interested.
We could ask to rejoin the SM/CU? We wont. We could align more closely. We wont.
Assuming the EU wont accept us dictating what checks they are allowed to carry out, what is the answer?
Estonia seem to be doing very well out of it.
I will maintain that the problem is Brexit, rather than the protocol. I appreciate the obvious points about referendums, and democracy etc, that you are prone to repeat. Did anyone think about the implementation beforehand? It doesnt seem like, and the difficulties seem so obvious now. I have no wish to minimise the importance of these, but it is the implementation of Brexit that is the problem. Under normal circumstances it would not have been a problem. But normal circumstances didnt apply. The UK as a whole would have left. A land border in Ireland. Sorted. We became a third country. First problem, we cant have a land border, that means NI must stay in the SM/CU, thereby splitting up the UK. For NI to comply with EU and GB rules was bound to create difficulties.
Comments
The EU would be stupid if they gave no consideration to us gaining a trade advantage by reducing regulation.
Workers' rights: Tory post-Brexit plans would 'sledgehammer' protections
THE Tory Government is looking at ripping up worker protections enshrined in EU law as ministers plan to change labour markets after Brexit.
The business department, with approval from Downing Street, is planning deregulatory measures including an end to the 48-hour working week and tweaks to breaks and overtime rules.
According to the Financial Times, the Government wants to stop the 48-hour limit, not include overtime pay when calculating holiday pay entitlements and no longer require businesses to report working hours in a move which could save around £1 billion.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19013617.workers-rights-tory-post-brexit-plans-sledgehammer-protections/
The EU can take into account various of these things. But it is not as simple as that. Things never are. For every action there is a reaction. Trade works like that. Particularly international trade.
The thing is this. The EU is very important to UK trade. And so is the UK to EU trade. The EU can keep banging on about the integrity of its precious Single Market. But if it does, there will be consequences. Those consequences will be damaging to both the UK and the EU. And EU member countries' electorates will suffer. And vote accordingly.
It is open to the UK to impose its own standards on EU imports. Using exactly the same criteria as the EU. Preventing cheap imports from reduced worker rights. For example, the Minimum Wage in Bulgaria is less than 2 Euros an hour. Labour costs in Czechia are 50% less than the UK, even though they have a highly-skilled workforce.
Will that be wise? Maybe not. But it will become necessary. Because the UK would have no choice but to adopt the same protectionist stance. And this will be the EU's doing.
What is the alternative?
I find arguments that lack facts, evidence, or logic rather silly.
We could have done a deal with less friction, but we chose not to.
To my knowledge the EU have not come up with a raft of new rules, just to punish us for leaving.
They are only implementing rules in respect of third countries, that were applicable while we were members.
We knew the rules.
How can we leave, then expect these rules not to apply to us?
I would agree that this is complicated by the fact that only part of the UK has effectively left.
It was our choice to leave NI in.
A typical example is the silly sausage war.
While we were members the EU didnt allow exports of chilled meats from third countries.
So why on earth would we think we can export sausages to NI after we left?
You persist inb believinbg that, where 2 parties agree to a terrible deal, all the fault rests with just 1 of those 2 parties.
You believe that anyone who believes this is somehow pro-Uk, and anti-EU.
you believe that any major nation (not the UK, any major nation) will allow a raft of trade barriers tobe erected, and do nothing in retaliation.
You have made literally thousands of posts, every single one of which attacks the UK position and/or praises the EU.
Go live there.
Did either side win?
Both sides can claim to have got what they wanted from the deal.
It contains stricter level playing field conditions than in other recent trade agreements signed by the EU. So, the EU has created strong protections for the single market.
But the UK has the right to break away from EU rules if it chooses to do so, and there is no role in enforcing the deal for the European Court of Justice. And that meets the UK demand for sovereignty.
That means a future UK government, which thinks market access is more important than the current government's notion of sovereignty, could choose to interpret the deal in a different way.
So, as a political issue, it's not going to go away.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/51180282
Airlines and travel firms face millions in claims after applying wrong passport rules
Thousands of travellers are set to claim millions of pounds from airlines and holiday firms after being wrongly denied trips to Europe.
Since the UK left the European Union, The Independent has repeatedly warned the government that it is misrepresenting post-Brexit passport validity rules.
Two European Union rules for “third country nationals” apply. Travellers are told: “You will need a passport valid for at least three months after the date you intend to leave the EU country you are visiting [and] which was issued within the previous 10 years.”
But the UK government claims otherwise, and many travel firms have followed its online advice.
But the European Commission has confirmed to The Independent that the government’s interpretation is wrong. The passport must simply meet the two conditions independently.
The government itself could face claims from travellers who paid hundreds of pounds for unnecessary rush renewals, because the online advice at gov.uk wrongly asserted that their passports were too old. In addition, firms that wrongly turned passengers away after following inaccurate official advice may seek recompense from the government.
Britain's biggest holiday company, Tui, has now changed its policy to comply with European law – but only after mistakenly denying boarding to a significant number of passengers.
Vanessa Pritchard-Wilkes is one of many holidaymakers wrongly denied boarding this summer. Last Friday at Birmingham airport she was turned away from a flight to Tenerife by Tui staff, even though her passport met the EU’s rules on validity.
She and her husband, Chris, had spent more than £1,600 on a holiday. The couple checked in without a problem at Birmingham airport, but at the departure gate they were told they could not travel because her passport was invalid for travel to Spain.
With a passport issued less than 10 years ago and valid for more than three months beyond the day they were due to fly home, Ms Pritchard-Wilkes was perfectly entitled to fly to any European Union nation.
But she says she was told by staff that if she had been allowed to fly, “Tui would have been fined and we would have been kept at the airport and flown home on the next available flight.”
Ms Pritchard-Wilkes, a housing professional from Sutton Coldfield, then spent £177 obtaining a new passport – which was not legally necessary – and finally travelled out to her holiday in the Canary Islands four days late.
A spokesperson for Tui said: “Following new information provided, we can confirm that we have now changed our policy accordingly. Customers will not be denied boarding on the basis that their passport needs to meet both conditions dependently.”
Under air passengers’ rights rules, a properly documented passenger who is denied boarding on a flight to Europe is entitled to either £220 or £350 in cash, depending on distance, plus a full refund of the entire fare.
https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/airlines-travel-firms-face-millions-103029745.html
Brexit victory as empty Wetherspoons pint glasses to be stamped with crown logo
Brexiters have today declared victory as Wetherspoons pint glasses – rendered empty and useless by Brexit-related beer shortages – will now be marked with the crown logo.
https://newsthump.com/2021/09/13/brexit-victory-as-empty-wetherspoons-pint-glasses-to-be-stamped-with-crown-logo/
Brexit triumph as Crown Stamp returns to pint glasses after bonfire of EU rules
“We will remove the EU-derived prohibition on printing the Crown Stamp on pint glasses and allowing publicans and restaurants to voluntarily embrace this important symbol on their glassware, should they choose to do so,” the Government said.
It added that there would be a review on retained EU restrictions on selling in pounds and ounces.
After Brexit took legal effect on Dec 31, the CE mark was replaced with the UKCA capacity verification mark, which will continue to be displayed on new pint glasses.
British border controls are “unlikely” to be as tough as the EU's, even when the UK does finally introduce delayed customs checks on imports from the Continent in July next year, he said.
He said Britain's new border would be lighter touch with fewer physical checks
He said: “We do not have to replicate everything the European Union does. We intend to have a world class border by 2025.”
An EU diplomattold The Telegraph: “Lord Frost has just saved Christmas for EU exporters: Brexit shields them from UK competition in the EU's single market while they still get unfettered access to the UK market – at least for a few more months.
“You can hear the champagne popping on this side of the channel. EU exporters hope for many more delays.”
There was no legal requirement to stop using glasses already marked with the Crown Stamp, which would have the word pint emblazoned above the royal symbol.
Its loss was soon added to a string of Brexiteer grievances such as the ditching of pounds and ounces, and the replacing of blue passports with EU red.
There were fears that the Crown Stamp would fade into history but it was ultimately saved by Brexit.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brexit-triumph-as-crown-stamp-returns-to-pint-glasses-after-bonfire-of-eu-rules/ar-AAOvVsG?ocid=msedgntp
Market worker's sarcastic take on Brexit raising prices during BBC Breakfast interview
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/market-worker-s-sarcastic-take-on-brexit-raising-prices-during-bbc-breakfast-interview/vi-AAOvB9M?ocid=msedgntp
The full name of the "British" pound (lb) is the Avoirdupois Pound. It is French
Never mind we are going to have a world class border soon.
Although I am not sure when soon is likely to be.
We have never stopped ordering beer in pints, and lots of US-led goods remain in pounds. People have always over-estimated how much the EU has really affected our daily life. Both when we were in it, and now we are out of it.
As an example, the reason we do not have a "world class border" is simple. We lack a plan and a budget.
The "Aukus" debate is quite interesting from an EU perspective. The French are blaming the UK/US for "stabbing them in the back" (meaning putting our interests ahead of theirs), whereas the reality is rather different.
The EU has various strengths as a trading bloc. But the world (and particularly the US) are not comfortable with the increased military/foreign policy alignment within the EU. France is no enemy of China-it is probably about as close as we are. But Germany is extremely close to China. Has been for decades-far closer than any other European nation. Which is precisely why US/Australia want a presence not involving the EU. Not to be anti-Chinese. But to be an independent voice.
They are seeking pardons for them.
Unbelievable, it could only happen in the UK.
Keep putting everything in kilograms-also allow everyone (if they wish) to use pounds as well. At least then people would know why so much stuff is sold in 454 gram packs. It was a ridiculous state of affairs while we were in-and equally mad now we are out. Did it really need to be a criminal offence?
His daughter was being interviewed, as the poor s0d died aged 39.
His daughter blames the stress caused by the prosecution.
They want Boris to give him a posthumous pardon.
It could only matter in the UK, if you were buying a bunch of bananas, who cares if they are weighed in pounds or kilos?
WTO rules demand a border between different customs territories.
So even if we ripped up the deal with the EU, we still require a border.
The border has to be a land border in Ireland, or in the Irish Sea.
Therefore the Irish Sea.
Avoiding the land border, means that NI remains in the SM/CU.
Therefore the Irish Sea border separates Great Britain from the EU/SM.
Close alignment means less friction, divergence means more.
We chose to diverge.
Surely the EU are entitled to decide which products need to be checked when entering their SM.
Would we allow them to dictate which products we must check, or not, on our borders?
I dont think so.
The DUP are making various threats, unless the protocol is ripped up.
What is the alternative if it was ripped up?
How could we remove NI from the SM/CU?
Where could we move the border to?
The EU have offered a means of reducing checks by 80%.
We are not interested.
We could ask to rejoin the SM/CU?
We wont.
We could align more closely.
We wont.
Assuming the EU wont accept us dictating what checks they are allowed to carry out, what is the answer?
Estonia seem to be doing very well out of it.
I will maintain that the problem is Brexit, rather than the protocol.
I appreciate the obvious points about referendums, and democracy etc, that you are prone to repeat.
Did anyone think about the implementation beforehand?
It doesnt seem like, and the difficulties seem so obvious now.
I have no wish to minimise the importance of these, but it is the implementation of Brexit that is the problem.
Under normal circumstances it would not have been a problem.
But normal circumstances didnt apply.
The UK as a whole would have left.
A land border in Ireland.
Sorted.
We became a third country.
First problem, we cant have a land border, that means NI must stay in the SM/CU, thereby splitting up the UK.
For NI to comply with EU and GB rules was bound to create difficulties.