BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
A bit harsh - when things like this happen you find out that things are more interdependent than you can reasonably have been expected to knowjohn80 said:
We could always make hand soap in the UK and maybe not have such a long supply chain leading to the situation. Don't get me wrong I think we have 3 bars of soap in the house so as long as Coronavirus does not turn into a nuclear winters duration I think we shall make it through.tailwindhome said:The empty shelves, normally full of hand soaps and sanitizer, is a lesson in just how quickly a supply chain can fall apart.
Supply chains falling apart should be a key risk in any supplier assessment. The fact that a large number of manufacturers are downgrading production figures suggest that someone has not thought through the risks of long and elaborate supply chains and assessed their risks properly.0 -
It is interesting when you get into this subject. It does seem that the dominant partner calls the shots as most of the benefit is going to the smaller party. If you have two parties that see themselves as equals (USA and EU) then you do not get a deal done.rick_chasey said:
For the things they have free trade for, yes.Longshot said:rick_chasey said:
And do also explain how you can have decent free trade with a single market and the regulatory environment that comes with that and yet also have regulatory divergence?rick_chasey said:Hey Stevo remind us what persuaded you to vote remain.
Does every trading partner of the EU have the same regulatory framework?0 -
I mean, who knew having a bigger market gave you more leverage in negotiations.surrey_commuter said:
It is interesting when you get into this subject. It does seem that the dominant partner calls the shots as most of the benefit is going to the smaller party. If you have two parties that see themselves as equals (USA and EU) then you do not get a deal done.rick_chasey said:
For the things they have free trade for, yes.Longshot said:rick_chasey said:
And do also explain how you can have decent free trade with a single market and the regulatory environment that comes with that and yet also have regulatory divergence?rick_chasey said:Hey Stevo remind us what persuaded you to vote remain.
Does every trading partner of the EU have the same regulatory framework?0 -
You mean a combination of vested interests and media hysteria to create Brexit scaremongering that the gullible fell for?rjsterry said:
Yeah, I have a feeling Covid 19 is going to make Brexit look like a falling out over who runs the cake stall at the village fete.Stevo_666 said:
Just goes to show that there are more important things than Brexit.tailwindhome said:The empty shelves, normally full of hand soaps and sanitizer, is a lesson in just how quickly a supply chain can fall apart.
We are now seeing a repeat of the scaremongering driven by the media with C19 as it drives clicks, views and revenue for them. And when C19 has passed they will be back on the Climate Change scaremongering.
It's obvious that C19 will be worse than Brexit, mainly because Brexit will at worst be neutral, and the economic impact of C19 will be because of the fear created. C19 will be no worse than a winter flu season for the majority but the vulnerable are at risk because with flu we are unable to immunise them against it.0 -
Oddly we'll never know the economic impact of Coronavirus.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Outstanding!!! one of your best, it is good to have you back and firing on all cylinders. Your most recent incarnation really did not have his heart in it.coopster_the_1st said:
You mean a combination of vested interests and media hysteria to create Brexit scaremongering that the gullible fell for?rjsterry said:
Yeah, I have a feeling Covid 19 is going to make Brexit look like a falling out over who runs the cake stall at the village fete.Stevo_666 said:
Just goes to show that there are more important things than Brexit.tailwindhome said:The empty shelves, normally full of hand soaps and sanitizer, is a lesson in just how quickly a supply chain can fall apart.
We are now seeing a repeat of the scaremongering driven by the media with C19 as it drives clicks, views and revenue for them. And when C19 has passed they will be back on the Climate Change scaremongering.
It's obvious that C19 will be worse than Brexit, mainly because Brexit will at worst be neutral, and the economic impact of C19 will be because of the fear created. C19 will be no worse than a winter flu season for the majority but the vulnerable are at risk because with flu we are unable to immunise them against it.0 -
Yeah we will.tailwindhome said:Oddly we'll never know the economic impact of Coronavirus.
Edit: is this the joke flying over my head?0 -
rick_chasey said:
Yeah we will.tailwindhome said:Oddly we'll never know the economic impact of Coronavirus.
Edit: is this the joke flying over my head?
No we won't. We might be able to take an educated guess at it.You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0 -
I was going to suggest this earlier, but Naomi Seibt sounds like just the sort of person you would like to follow on Facebook.coopster_the_1st said:
You mean a combination of vested interests and media hysteria to create Brexit scaremongering that the gullible fell for?rjsterry said:
Yeah, I have a feeling Covid 19 is going to make Brexit look like a falling out over who runs the cake stall at the village fete.Stevo_666 said:
Just goes to show that there are more important things than Brexit.tailwindhome said:The empty shelves, normally full of hand soaps and sanitizer, is a lesson in just how quickly a supply chain can fall apart.
We are now seeing a repeat of the scaremongering driven by the media with C19 as it drives clicks, views and revenue for them. And when C19 has passed they will be back on the Climate Change scaremongering.
It's obvious that C19 will be worse than Brexit, mainly because Brexit will at worst be neutral, and the economic impact of C19 will be because of the fear created. C19 will be no worse than a winter flu season for the majority but the vulnerable are at risk because with flu we are unable to immunise them against it.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Yes. There's no world without Covid 19 to compare against so 🤷♂️rick_chasey said:
Yeah we will.tailwindhome said:Oddly we'll never know the economic impact of Coronavirus.
Edit: is this the joke flying over my head?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I have no idea who you are talking about but if you don't believe the media has a vested interest in creating and pushing the fear around C19 I have a bridge to sell you!rjsterry said:
I was going to suggest this earlier, but Naomi Seibt sounds like just the sort of person you would like to follow on Facebook.coopster_the_1st said:
You mean a combination of vested interests and media hysteria to create Brexit scaremongering that the gullible fell for?rjsterry said:
Yeah, I have a feeling Covid 19 is going to make Brexit look like a falling out over who runs the cake stall at the village fete.Stevo_666 said:
Just goes to show that there are more important things than Brexit.tailwindhome said:The empty shelves, normally full of hand soaps and sanitizer, is a lesson in just how quickly a supply chain can fall apart.
We are now seeing a repeat of the scaremongering driven by the media with C19 as it drives clicks, views and revenue for them. And when C19 has passed they will be back on the Climate Change scaremongering.
It's obvious that C19 will be worse than Brexit, mainly because Brexit will at worst be neutral, and the economic impact of C19 will be because of the fear created. C19 will be no worse than a winter flu season for the majority but the vulnerable are at risk because with flu we are unable to immunise them against it.0 -
That's why the joint committee are incentivised to not do a full Barnier. For all the criticism, it is the clever part of the deal and one of the significant changes made to the withdrawal agreement.tailwindhome said:
What a choice,eh?TheBigBean said:NI will exercise its democratic right to leave the protocol one way or another.
0 -
Finally you’ve understood.coopster_the_1st said:
You mean a combination of vested interests and media hysteria to create Brexit scaremongering that the gullible fell for?rjsterry said:
Yeah, I have a feeling Covid 19 is going to make Brexit look like a falling out over who runs the cake stall at the village fete.Stevo_666 said:
Just goes to show that there are more important things than Brexit.tailwindhome said:The empty shelves, normally full of hand soaps and sanitizer, is a lesson in just how quickly a supply chain can fall apart.
0 -
It would be hugely helpful if the UKgov were to be properly engaged in the process, with all stakeholders, and not playing silly beggars over their clever messaging.TheBigBean said:
That's why the joint committee are incentivised to not do a full Barnier. For all the criticism, it is the clever part of the deal and one of the significant changes made to the withdrawal agreement.tailwindhome said:
What a choice,eh?TheBigBean said:NI will exercise its democratic right to leave the protocol one way or another.
Worth considering that the starting point for costs to business of the GB>NI trade will be that endured by businesses trading GB>EU
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Radio 5 live had their reporter this morning at Delf, a hand sanitizer manufacturer on the Wirral.john80 said:
We could always make hand soap in the UK and maybe not have such a long supply chain leading to the situation. Don't get me wrong I think we have 3 bars of soap in the house so as long as Coronavirus does not turn into a nuclear winters duration I think we shall make it through.tailwindhome said:The empty shelves, normally full of hand soaps and sanitizer, is a lesson in just how quickly a supply chain can fall apart.
Supply chains falling apart should be a key risk in any supplier assessment. The fact that a large number of manufacturers are downgrading production figures suggest that someone has not thought through the risks of long and elaborate supply chains and assessed their risks properly.0 -
That's certainly the EU's starting point, but it is not the UK's hence the disagreement. They should be checking goods that are at risk of being taken across the border. I can see strong arguments that that wouldn't apply to large surpermarket chains that will sell stuff to individuals. I can see how a wholesaler would be affected though.tailwindhome said:
It would be hugely helpful if the UKgov were to be properly engaged in the process, with all stakeholders, and not playing silly beggars over their clever messaging.TheBigBean said:
That's why the joint committee are incentivised to not do a full Barnier. For all the criticism, it is the clever part of the deal and one of the significant changes made to the withdrawal agreement.tailwindhome said:
What a choice,eh?TheBigBean said:NI will exercise its democratic right to leave the protocol one way or another.
Worth considering that the starting point for costs to business of the GB>NI trade will be that endured by businesses trading GB>EU
0 -
Fair point re China. Although re us standards, I’d argue they aren’t asking to align our regs, they are trying persuade us theirs are good enough.surrey_commuter said:
The US do care about our regs which is why they want us to relax them on hormones in beef and chlorinating chicken. They also want to bar us from doing a deal with China.morstar said:
They helped us grow our economy whilst in the EU to little detriment.Stevo_666 said:
Clearly defined does not equate to reasonable.morstar said:
Yes, because either Remain, failed to convince people the benefits outweighed what we traded or...Stevo_666 said:
which is largely why we are in this situation now.morstar said:
You don’t set out with that as your objective!Stevo_666 said:
The point is why would we want to give away loads of it?tailwindhome said:
The UK has already accepted EU control over (part of) the UK.Stevo_666 said:As for sovereignty, its what people want and voted for. Personally I didn't vote that way but I can't see why we would want to give away control. Can you?
You trade some of it away for other benefits that you consider of equal or preferably greater value.
Brexit tapped into emotional arguments that bypassed economic ones or...
The benefits didn’t outweigh what we traded.
All subjective.
It’s not about what we traded so much as how much importance you assign to what we traded.
I’d argue the number of people qualifying their reasoning was quite low.
You seem to be of the opinion we are going to trade away very little in coming years. I find that highly unlikely. It will just be to a broader spread of partners and on a more ad hoc basis that the clearly defined expectations of the EU.
However we have decided we wish to follow a different path so that is moot.
There was then a helpful chart showing how all the different options of parity met TM’s red lines.
We now apparently have a different set of requirements where we trade zilch in terms of regulatory alignment.
As a sovereign nation we are free to do so but, seeing as we are heavily dependent on trade for day to day needs, this seems an unrealistic position.
Unless of course we just accept that both sides are peacocking and setting out their positions.
The thing with regs is that the EU is highly regulated and they are linking access to alignment.
The US are low regs so don’t care what regs we have but, trading with them potentially undermines our standards to the detriment of our own industries. e.g farming.
We can do what the hell we like but there are both good and bad consequences of choices.
I know you are arguing based on we are Brexiting so let’s get in with it but you do realise that cake and eat it isn’t really available.
I am guessing this is the way that it is in trade negotiations
As far as they are concerned, we could have higher standards internally if we were happy to import their low quality tat.
That is obviously a stupid idea but their objective is exporting to us, not regulatory alignment.
The EU, wants alignment to protect themselves.
0 -
The starting assumption in the Protocol is that goods ARE at risk of crossing the border the Joint Committee determines what isn't.TheBigBean said:
That's certainly the EU's starting point, but it is not the UK's hence the disagreement. They should be checking goods that are at risk of being taken across the border. I can see strong arguments that that wouldn't apply to large surpermarket chains that will sell stuff to individuals. I can see how a wholesaler would be affected though.tailwindhome said:
It would be hugely helpful if the UKgov were to be properly engaged in the process, with all stakeholders, and not playing silly beggars over their clever messaging.TheBigBean said:
That's why the joint committee are incentivised to not do a full Barnier. For all the criticism, it is the clever part of the deal and one of the significant changes made to the withdrawal agreement.tailwindhome said:
What a choice,eh?TheBigBean said:NI will exercise its democratic right to leave the protocol one way or another.
Worth considering that the starting point for costs to business of the GB>NI trade will be that endured by businesses trading GB>EU
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I don't see how you can have a second category of food that does not meet UK standards, surely you have to amend UK standards.morstar said:
Fair point re China. Although re us standards, I’d argue they aren’t asking to align our regs, they are trying persuade us theirs are good enough.surrey_commuter said:
The US do care about our regs which is why they want us to relax them on hormones in beef and chlorinating chicken. They also want to bar us from doing a deal with China.morstar said:
They helped us grow our economy whilst in the EU to little detriment.Stevo_666 said:
Clearly defined does not equate to reasonable.morstar said:
Yes, because either Remain, failed to convince people the benefits outweighed what we traded or...Stevo_666 said:
which is largely why we are in this situation now.morstar said:
You don’t set out with that as your objective!Stevo_666 said:
The point is why would we want to give away loads of it?tailwindhome said:
The UK has already accepted EU control over (part of) the UK.Stevo_666 said:As for sovereignty, its what people want and voted for. Personally I didn't vote that way but I can't see why we would want to give away control. Can you?
You trade some of it away for other benefits that you consider of equal or preferably greater value.
Brexit tapped into emotional arguments that bypassed economic ones or...
The benefits didn’t outweigh what we traded.
All subjective.
It’s not about what we traded so much as how much importance you assign to what we traded.
I’d argue the number of people qualifying their reasoning was quite low.
You seem to be of the opinion we are going to trade away very little in coming years. I find that highly unlikely. It will just be to a broader spread of partners and on a more ad hoc basis that the clearly defined expectations of the EU.
However we have decided we wish to follow a different path so that is moot.
There was then a helpful chart showing how all the different options of parity met TM’s red lines.
We now apparently have a different set of requirements where we trade zilch in terms of regulatory alignment.
As a sovereign nation we are free to do so but, seeing as we are heavily dependent on trade for day to day needs, this seems an unrealistic position.
Unless of course we just accept that both sides are peacocking and setting out their positions.
The thing with regs is that the EU is highly regulated and they are linking access to alignment.
The US are low regs so don’t care what regs we have but, trading with them potentially undermines our standards to the detriment of our own industries. e.g farming.
We can do what the hell we like but there are both good and bad consequences of choices.
I know you are arguing based on we are Brexiting so let’s get in with it but you do realise that cake and eat it isn’t really available.
I am guessing this is the way that it is in trade negotiations
As far as they are concerned, we could have higher standards internally if we were happy to import their low quality tat.
That is obviously a stupid idea but their objective is exporting to us, not regulatory alignment.
The EU, wants alignment to protect themselves.0 -
I'm led to believe that the risk of crossing the border relates to the reclaiming of tariffs NOT the regulatory and compliance costs --- but we've quickly reached the limit of my knowledgetailwindhome said:
The starting assumption in the Protocol is that goods ARE at risk of crossing the border the Joint Committee determines what isn't.TheBigBean said:
That's certainly the EU's starting point, but it is not the UK's hence the disagreement. They should be checking goods that are at risk of being taken across the border. I can see strong arguments that that wouldn't apply to large surpermarket chains that will sell stuff to individuals. I can see how a wholesaler would be affected though.tailwindhome said:
It would be hugely helpful if the UKgov were to be properly engaged in the process, with all stakeholders, and not playing silly beggars over their clever messaging.TheBigBean said:
That's why the joint committee are incentivised to not do a full Barnier. For all the criticism, it is the clever part of the deal and one of the significant changes made to the withdrawal agreement.tailwindhome said:
What a choice,eh?TheBigBean said:NI will exercise its democratic right to leave the protocol one way or another.
Worth considering that the starting point for costs to business of the GB>NI trade will be that endured by businesses trading GB>EU“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
tailwindhome said:
I'm led to believe that the risk of crossing the border relates to the reclaiming of tariffs NOT the regulatory and compliance costs --- but we've quickly reached the limit of my knowledgetailwindhome said:
The starting assumption in the Protocol is that goods ARE at risk of crossing the border the Joint Committee determines what isn't.TheBigBean said:
That's certainly the EU's starting point, but it is not the UK's hence the disagreement. They should be checking goods that are at risk of being taken across the border. I can see strong arguments that that wouldn't apply to large surpermarket chains that will sell stuff to individuals. I can see how a wholesaler would be affected though.tailwindhome said:
It would be hugely helpful if the UKgov were to be properly engaged in the process, with all stakeholders, and not playing silly beggars over their clever messaging.TheBigBean said:
That's why the joint committee are incentivised to not do a full Barnier. For all the criticism, it is the clever part of the deal and one of the significant changes made to the withdrawal agreement.tailwindhome said:
What a choice,eh?TheBigBean said:NI will exercise its democratic right to leave the protocol one way or another.
Worth considering that the starting point for costs to business of the GB>NI trade will be that endured by businesses trading GB>EU
Preumably it can sit in a warehouse and go off?You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0 -
don't overegg it, just leave it hanging therecoopster_the_1st said:
I have no idea who you are talking about but if you don't believe the media has a vested interest in creating and pushing the fear around C19 I have a bridge to sell you!rjsterry said:
I was going to suggest this earlier, but Naomi Seibt sounds like just the sort of person you would like to follow on Facebook.coopster_the_1st said:
You mean a combination of vested interests and media hysteria to create Brexit scaremongering that the gullible fell for?rjsterry said:
Yeah, I have a feeling Covid 19 is going to make Brexit look like a falling out over who runs the cake stall at the village fete.Stevo_666 said:
Just goes to show that there are more important things than Brexit.tailwindhome said:The empty shelves, normally full of hand soaps and sanitizer, is a lesson in just how quickly a supply chain can fall apart.
We are now seeing a repeat of the scaremongering driven by the media with C19 as it drives clicks, views and revenue for them. And when C19 has passed they will be back on the Climate Change scaremongering.
It's obvious that C19 will be worse than Brexit, mainly because Brexit will at worst be neutral, and the economic impact of C19 will be because of the fear created. C19 will be no worse than a winter flu season for the majority but the vulnerable are at risk because with flu we are unable to immunise them against it.0 -
Agreed. But it is simply an outcome, not the objective. The EU have an objective of alignment to protect.surrey_commuter said:
I don't see how you can have a second category of food that does not meet UK standards, surely you have to amend UK standards.morstar said:
Fair point re China. Although re us standards, I’d argue they aren’t asking to align our regs, they are trying persuade us theirs are good enough.surrey_commuter said:
The US do care about our regs which is why they want us to relax them on hormones in beef and chlorinating chicken. They also want to bar us from doing a deal with China.morstar said:
They helped us grow our economy whilst in the EU to little detriment.Stevo_666 said:
Clearly defined does not equate to reasonable.morstar said:
Yes, because either Remain, failed to convince people the benefits outweighed what we traded or...Stevo_666 said:
which is largely why we are in this situation now.morstar said:
You don’t set out with that as your objective!Stevo_666 said:
The point is why would we want to give away loads of it?tailwindhome said:
The UK has already accepted EU control over (part of) the UK.Stevo_666 said:As for sovereignty, its what people want and voted for. Personally I didn't vote that way but I can't see why we would want to give away control. Can you?
You trade some of it away for other benefits that you consider of equal or preferably greater value.
Brexit tapped into emotional arguments that bypassed economic ones or...
The benefits didn’t outweigh what we traded.
All subjective.
It’s not about what we traded so much as how much importance you assign to what we traded.
I’d argue the number of people qualifying their reasoning was quite low.
You seem to be of the opinion we are going to trade away very little in coming years. I find that highly unlikely. It will just be to a broader spread of partners and on a more ad hoc basis that the clearly defined expectations of the EU.
However we have decided we wish to follow a different path so that is moot.
There was then a helpful chart showing how all the different options of parity met TM’s red lines.
We now apparently have a different set of requirements where we trade zilch in terms of regulatory alignment.
As a sovereign nation we are free to do so but, seeing as we are heavily dependent on trade for day to day needs, this seems an unrealistic position.
Unless of course we just accept that both sides are peacocking and setting out their positions.
The thing with regs is that the EU is highly regulated and they are linking access to alignment.
The US are low regs so don’t care what regs we have but, trading with them potentially undermines our standards to the detriment of our own industries. e.g farming.
We can do what the hell we like but there are both good and bad consequences of choices.
I know you are arguing based on we are Brexiting so let’s get in with it but you do realise that cake and eat it isn’t really available.
I am guessing this is the way that it is in trade negotiations
As far as they are concerned, we could have higher standards internally if we were happy to import their low quality tat.
That is obviously a stupid idea but their objective is exporting to us, not regulatory alignment.
The EU, wants alignment to protect themselves.
US want to trade which bring alignment by default.
The US don’t care what our regs are if we will buy from them. Alignment is our internal consideration.
It is effectively a semantics argument so not worth getting hung up on.0 -
What can?Longshot said:tailwindhome said:
I'm led to believe that the risk of crossing the border relates to the reclaiming of tariffs NOT the regulatory and compliance costs --- but we've quickly reached the limit of my knowledgetailwindhome said:
The starting assumption in the Protocol is that goods ARE at risk of crossing the border the Joint Committee determines what isn't.TheBigBean said:
That's certainly the EU's starting point, but it is not the UK's hence the disagreement. They should be checking goods that are at risk of being taken across the border. I can see strong arguments that that wouldn't apply to large surpermarket chains that will sell stuff to individuals. I can see how a wholesaler would be affected though.tailwindhome said:
It would be hugely helpful if the UKgov were to be properly engaged in the process, with all stakeholders, and not playing silly beggars over their clever messaging.TheBigBean said:
That's why the joint committee are incentivised to not do a full Barnier. For all the criticism, it is the clever part of the deal and one of the significant changes made to the withdrawal agreement.tailwindhome said:
What a choice,eh?TheBigBean said:NI will exercise its democratic right to leave the protocol one way or another.
Worth considering that the starting point for costs to business of the GB>NI trade will be that endured by businesses trading GB>EU
Preumably it can sit in a warehouse and go off?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Yes, I think you are right about that, but doing a customs declaration, paying tax and reclaiming it would clearly be a chunky admin cost. The sort that would be included in a headline grabbing figure.tailwindhome said:
I'm led to believe that the risk of crossing the border relates to the reclaiming of tariffs NOT the regulatory and compliance costs --- but we've quickly reached the limit of my knowledgetailwindhome said:
The starting assumption in the Protocol is that goods ARE at risk of crossing the border the Joint Committee determines what isn't.TheBigBean said:
That's certainly the EU's starting point, but it is not the UK's hence the disagreement. They should be checking goods that are at risk of being taken across the border. I can see strong arguments that that wouldn't apply to large surpermarket chains that will sell stuff to individuals. I can see how a wholesaler would be affected though.tailwindhome said:
It would be hugely helpful if the UKgov were to be properly engaged in the process, with all stakeholders, and not playing silly beggars over their clever messaging.TheBigBean said:
That's why the joint committee are incentivised to not do a full Barnier. For all the criticism, it is the clever part of the deal and one of the significant changes made to the withdrawal agreement.tailwindhome said:
What a choice,eh?TheBigBean said:NI will exercise its democratic right to leave the protocol one way or another.
Worth considering that the starting point for costs to business of the GB>NI trade will be that endured by businesses trading GB>EU
Or perhaps your original twitter quote related simply to regulatory compliance. In which case, NI will have an awkward choice to make0 -
This is more a reflection of being lean and "just in time" manufacturing. Holding stock cost money, a lot of money. If we made soap in the UK (which we do anyway) the situation wouldn't change, there would still be empty shelves from panic buying.surrey_commuter said:
A bit harsh - when things like this happen you find out that things are more interdependent than you can reasonably have been expected to knowjohn80 said:
We could always make hand soap in the UK and maybe not have such a long supply chain leading to the situation. Don't get me wrong I think we have 3 bars of soap in the house so as long as Coronavirus does not turn into a nuclear winters duration I think we shall make it through.tailwindhome said:The empty shelves, normally full of hand soaps and sanitizer, is a lesson in just how quickly a supply chain can fall apart.
Supply chains falling apart should be a key risk in any supplier assessment. The fact that a large number of manufacturers are downgrading production figures suggest that someone has not thought through the risks of long and elaborate supply chains and assessed their risks properly.0 -
Sorry, I misquoted. I was referring to the second category of food comment. It seemed to suggest that it was fine for it to be imported but not OK to consume.tailwindhome said:
What can?Longshot said:tailwindhome said:
I'm led to believe that the risk of crossing the border relates to the reclaiming of tariffs NOT the regulatory and compliance costs --- but we've quickly reached the limit of my knowledgetailwindhome said:
The starting assumption in the Protocol is that goods ARE at risk of crossing the border the Joint Committee determines what isn't.TheBigBean said:
That's certainly the EU's starting point, but it is not the UK's hence the disagreement. They should be checking goods that are at risk of being taken across the border. I can see strong arguments that that wouldn't apply to large surpermarket chains that will sell stuff to individuals. I can see how a wholesaler would be affected though.tailwindhome said:
It would be hugely helpful if the UKgov were to be properly engaged in the process, with all stakeholders, and not playing silly beggars over their clever messaging.TheBigBean said:
That's why the joint committee are incentivised to not do a full Barnier. For all the criticism, it is the clever part of the deal and one of the significant changes made to the withdrawal agreement.tailwindhome said:
What a choice,eh?TheBigBean said:NI will exercise its democratic right to leave the protocol one way or another.
Worth considering that the starting point for costs to business of the GB>NI trade will be that endured by businesses trading GB>EU
Preumably it can sit in a warehouse and go off?You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0 -
In that case replying to me.Longshot said:
Sorry, I misquoted. I was referring to the second category of food comment. It seemed to suggest that it was fine for it to be imported but not OK to consume.tailwindhome said:
What can?Longshot said:tailwindhome said:
I'm led to believe that the risk of crossing the border relates to the reclaiming of tariffs NOT the regulatory and compliance costs --- but we've quickly reached the limit of my knowledgetailwindhome said:
The starting assumption in the Protocol is that goods ARE at risk of crossing the border the Joint Committee determines what isn't.TheBigBean said:
That's certainly the EU's starting point, but it is not the UK's hence the disagreement. They should be checking goods that are at risk of being taken across the border. I can see strong arguments that that wouldn't apply to large surpermarket chains that will sell stuff to individuals. I can see how a wholesaler would be affected though.tailwindhome said:
It would be hugely helpful if the UKgov were to be properly engaged in the process, with all stakeholders, and not playing silly beggars over their clever messaging.TheBigBean said:
That's why the joint committee are incentivised to not do a full Barnier. For all the criticism, it is the clever part of the deal and one of the significant changes made to the withdrawal agreement.tailwindhome said:
What a choice,eh?TheBigBean said:NI will exercise its democratic right to leave the protocol one way or another.
Worth considering that the starting point for costs to business of the GB>NI trade will be that endured by businesses trading GB>EU
Preumably it can sit in a warehouse and go off?
I agree it’s nonsense but the regulations are not singular.
You ‘could’ lower our regulations for allowable consumption whilst upholding higher regulations for animal husbandry and welfare for UK produced food.
But I’m not suggesting this will happen, merely stating the US aren’t seeking regulatory alignment as a direct objective.
They don’t care what our regs are if we will buy their stuff on their terms.
The EU do care about directly about our regs.
GB farmers are in a difficult spot either way if we import US meat. They simply cannot compete. The industry will become niche and high value.
I guess it would be interesting if the US export market for high quality products could compensate. I doubt it would.0 -
is it possible, legally, to have lower standards for imports than home grown? is this common?morstar said:
In that case replying to me.Longshot said:
Sorry, I misquoted. I was referring to the second category of food comment. It seemed to suggest that it was fine for it to be imported but not OK to consume.tailwindhome said:
What can?Longshot said:tailwindhome said:
I'm led to believe that the risk of crossing the border relates to the reclaiming of tariffs NOT the regulatory and compliance costs --- but we've quickly reached the limit of my knowledgetailwindhome said:
The starting assumption in the Protocol is that goods ARE at risk of crossing the border the Joint Committee determines what isn't.TheBigBean said:
That's certainly the EU's starting point, but it is not the UK's hence the disagreement. They should be checking goods that are at risk of being taken across the border. I can see strong arguments that that wouldn't apply to large surpermarket chains that will sell stuff to individuals. I can see how a wholesaler would be affected though.tailwindhome said:
It would be hugely helpful if the UKgov were to be properly engaged in the process, with all stakeholders, and not playing silly beggars over their clever messaging.TheBigBean said:
That's why the joint committee are incentivised to not do a full Barnier. For all the criticism, it is the clever part of the deal and one of the significant changes made to the withdrawal agreement.tailwindhome said:
What a choice,eh?TheBigBean said:NI will exercise its democratic right to leave the protocol one way or another.
Worth considering that the starting point for costs to business of the GB>NI trade will be that endured by businesses trading GB>EU
Preumably it can sit in a warehouse and go off?
I agree it’s nonsense but the regulations are not singular.
You ‘could’ lower our regulations for allowable consumption whilst upholding higher regulations for animal husbandry and welfare for UK produced food.
But I’m not suggesting this will happen, merely stating the US aren’t seeking regulatory alignment as a direct objective.
They don’t care what our regs are if we will buy their stuff on their terms.
The EU do care about directly about our regs.
GB farmers are in a difficult spot either way if we import US meat. They simply cannot compete. The industry will become niche and high value.
I guess it would be interesting if the US export market for high quality products could compensate. I doubt it would.0 -
Well we buy phones and clothes to name but two types of products that are manufactured in conditions that would be illegal in the UK.surrey_commuter said:
is it possible, legally, to have lower standards for imports than home grown? is this common?
0
