More Brexit Misery

[Hymie]

It has been some time since I posted a video from my mate Phil.

 

In this video he explains that border checks now being imposed on imports will add to the costs of goods in the UK, and for some it not worth importing their goods.

 

Brexit is far from finished damaging the UK economy which already stands at a total loss of over £100 billion and a loss of £40 billion per annum in tax revenue to the exchequer.

 

[Hymie]

To cheer up the Brexiteers, below is my list of Brexit benefits (each well worth the loss of £40 billion per annum in tax revenue):-

 

-          Blue passports

-          The Crown Mark on pub glasses

-          Being able to buy champagne in pint bottles, rather than 750ml (1.3 pints)

-          Mobile phone companies able to make roaming charges
(when using your phone in mainland Europe)

-          Not having to insure ride-on lawnmowers (and other self-powered vehicles) used on private land

-          Signage within Dartford tunnel spaced at yardage distances (in round numbers)

-          The freedom to release as much raw sewage as we like into our rivers and coastal waters (and doing so), without fear of being prosecuted by the European Commission

-          Un-capped bonuses permitted to be paid to our bankers

-          Not having to declare millions of pounds you have in secret off-shore tax havens

-          Shellfish beds found in the Thames estuary

 

Note that I have removed the benefit of killing our honey-bees with EU banned pesticides; the UK now being rule takers rather than rule makers; had to follow the EU rules if we want to trade with them.

[New Judge]

But the UK is no longer a member of the EU. That was the aim of Brexit and that is all that matters. The rest is simply "noise".

[Old_Geezer]

So he is saying that the EU is so untrustworthy they may export diseased stock ? Best a nation gets out of somewhere like that then. Apparently if they have duff stock they simply ignore that fact; presumably don't even check. Who knows what their member states are getting given such checks aren't made internally.

 

Paperwork should indicate problems, but it should not need to as, once noted there's an issue, stuff ought not be transported in the first place. But apparently Phil tells us that you can't tell there's a problem from the EU paperwork ! What sort of appalling nation or groups of nations would operate that way ? No wonder the EU applies costs to goods coming into the EU, maybe it isn't just sour grapes after all; they must be assuming that everyone else's moral & ethical standards are as bad as their own.

 

Note that he agrees such checks are necessary, that even more checks than is presently done should be done, and that the EU is so untrustworthy that they should have been done from day one; and yet it is nation's outside the EU that have to do these checks, those who are EU members fund no such checks with their 'free movement of (dodgy EU) goods', he admits that, as he says we would not need them had we been daft enough to stay in the single market.

 

(This concept of not giving a darn what leaves the EU might explain how so many illegals get to leave there to come here. It's a pity we can't do to the EU what Trump in the US is telling Mexico & Canada.)

 

I think 10 minutes of that nonsense is enough watching of Phil. He's simply proving how wise it was to get out, and the terrible consequences of dealing with a low standards federal block. Thanks for the warning Phil, but do try to come to sensible conclusions in the future.

[ToraToraTora]

why do you think that anything they do is unilateral?

[New Judge]

I don’t usually give Phil any of my time. I’ve normally got some paint that needs careful watching whilst it is drying, But reading OG’s post, I thought I’d take a look.

A few snippets from the opening two minutes:

“The EU began making checks on goods from the EU on day one - we did nothing for years.”

“Without checks we have no way of knowing what’s in the back of the lorry is what the paperwork says.”

“What if some of the livestock is diseased or could wipe out entire farms or is unfit for human consumption. We know his is happening. You can’t tell that from the paperwork, only by physical checks.”

“We know his is happening because it was discovered in a random operation a few years ago”

Until Brexit, the UK did not impose border checks on goods from other EU countries, nor was there any “paperwork” accompanying those goods. Such checks were not permitted and the paperwork not required. Similar circumstances prevailed with goods going from the UK o the EU. It was assumed (though never checked) that all member nations complied with the standards.

From Day One, the EU abandoned that assumption and saw fit to impose checks. Quite why they assumed that overnight the UK’s produce would change from meeting EU standards to not doing so to such a degree that physical checks were required is a mystery.  But, their club, their rules, no problem.

However, the UK did not see fit to reciprocate. There is some logic to this. Until Brexit all members - including the UK - had to assume that any goods coming from an EU country met EU standards. There was no choice as checks were not permitted and no paperwork was presented.

What Phil is saying is that - like the EU -  the UK should have abandoned that presumption on day one and insisted on paperwork and checks. Again, quite why this should be is not explained.

What he seems to be saying is that rogue suppliers have been sourcing unfit meat and shipping it directly to the UK (where they knew there was some sort of border control, even if very light). They did this rather than ship it to anywhere else in the EU where there would definitely be neither checks nor paperwork. 

Why does he think they did this only after Brexit? Could a more plausible explanation possibly be that it is going on all over the EU (including the UK when it was a member) and has only been discovered by the UK as a result of its random operation? 

So, Hymie, do you really grasp what Phil is saying, or do you simply assume that since he’s criticising Brexit, he must automatically be talking sense? There are no checks within the 30 members of the Single Market. The opportunity to ship rancid meat to them is available to any rogue supplier. From within those 30 nations. Why does Phil (or you) believe the practice of supplying dodgy meat only involves shifting it to the UK and only began since Brexit?

Far from imposing "more Brexit misery" I would suggest that possibly even now, and certainly if and when the UK does get round to imposing proper checks on goods from the EU, there is far less chance of any dodgy produce arrive here from across The Channel than there is of it crossing the border between, say, Bulgaria and Greece.