noviorbis77 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

I don’t think the worlds fifth biggest economy is that easy to ignore.

Sure, but what does India have to do with anything here?

we have an economy larger than france remember.

Just marginally, at the latest estimate.
You've already slipped to 6th place due to Brexit and that slide is likely to continue once you've lost not just the political influence but the economical benefits of EU membership, too.

Actually we are 7th I believe in terms of largest economies.

Wikipedia quotes the 2019 GDP estimate with the UK still slightly above France, but it's just an estimate, so firmer numbers may indeed say otherwise.

But it's the trajectory after the actual economic exit starting with 2021 that really matters in the end.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Plus the Immigration Rules will apply, rather than EEA regs so we can start refusing entry to EU nationals at the border, who can’t satisfy meeting immigration rules.

No, you can't "start" doing that because the UK always already could while still being an EU member!

That you actually believe this lie is one thing, but that you believe the lie that EU immigration was somehow to the detriment of the UK and you and many others based their votes on these lies is part of the tragedy but also of the cynical comedy about this.

Tugger wrote:

The EU can mandate whatever rules it wishes (essentially) for its governed regions, and it can isolate or insulate itself as well. China does it so I won't be at all surprised if another governing body does the same. The world will adjust and be OK.

The world has already decided in many sectors that it's worth the effort to support the specific rules and regulations for exports to the "big three", so neither of those is "isolated" in any way, probably the EU least of them because it has a particularly large influence on international standards and regulations.

The UK just can't and won't ascend to the same level simply because it doesn't have a sufficiently large and attractive market to offer, so if it does indeed diverge from the EU it can either align with one of the other "big two" (neither of which makes any sense) or it can push through its own diverging rules and regulations and see those mostly being ignored by other countries apart from a few minor specialty suppliers.

Or it can align itself with the EU, wich is really the only sensible option in practice, just below the even more sensible option of actually being able to influence the EU's rules and regulations which is exactly what it has just thrown away. It's truly bonkers – just unless you're looking at it from Rupert Murdoch's private point of view, or from that of other billionaires, large corporations and russian oligarchs pumping their money through the UK. Only then it makes some semblance of sense to forcibly diverge the UK from the EU.

It's not about the UK, really, it's about being a smaller country. Which is why the other smaller countries in Europe got together to escape that essentially powerless situation, and it's exactly what the UK is now slipping back to.

Klaus wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Plus the Immigration Rules will apply, rather than EEA regs so we can start refusing entry to EU nationals at the border, who can’t satisfy meeting immigration rules.

No, you can't "start" doing that because the UK always already could while still being an EU member!

That you actually believe this lie is one thing, but that you believe the lie that EU immigration was somehow to the detriment of the UK and you and many others based their votes on these lies is part of the tragedy but also of the cynical comedy about this.

No we could under refuse entry to EU Nationals under EEA regs, and not under the Immigration Acts.

It would be public security, public health and public policy.

We did and do deport EU nationals not exercising treaty rights and those that commit serious criminal offences.

Klaus wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Plus the Immigration Rules will apply, rather than EEA regs so we can start refusing entry to EU nationals at the border, who can’t satisfy meeting immigration rules.

No, you can't "start" doing that because the UK always already could while still being an EU member!

That you actually believe this lie is one thing, but that you believe the lie that EU immigration was somehow to the detriment of the UK and you and many others based their votes on these lies is part of the tragedy but also of the cynical comedy about this.

And given that we did not apply the Immigration Rules under the 1971 or 2007 Act, to EU nationals, you are completely incorrect in your comments. However from 01/01/21, the Immigration Rules under 71 or 2007 Act will apply to EU nationals and not the EEA regs.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Plus the Immigration Rules will apply, rather than EEA regs so we can start refusing entry to EU nationals at the border, who can’t satisfy meeting immigration rules.

No, you can't "start" doing that because the UK always already could while still being an EU member!

That you actually believe this lie is one thing, but that you believe the lie that EU immigration was somehow to the detriment of the UK and you and many others based their votes on these lies is part of the tragedy but also of the cynical comedy about this.

And given that we did not apply the Immigration Rules under the 1971 or 2007 Act, to EU nationals, you are completely incorrect in your comments. However from 01/01/21, the Immigration Rules under 71 or 2007 Act will apply to EU nationals and not the EEA regs.

All EU countries have already had the ability to kick out EU immigrants who'd fit the descriptions the brexiters keep quoting in their reasoning for Brexit. There's nothing you've gained there.

The UK has lots of its own domestic issues such as its crappy and effectively nonexistent citizenship system which needs to be fixed UK-domestically but your leaders instead blamed the consequences of your own decrepit system on the EU as the catch-all scapegoat like pretty much every other domestic problem (notably including many problems those same politicians had actively created themselves).

Not just letting exactly those domestic politicians getting away with that but actually handing even more power to them for screwing up the country even worse now is among the prime absurdities.

But all for not having to face actual domestic reforms, apparently, so off you go!

noviorbis77 wrote:

olle wrote:

Eitas from 2021 as visa?

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/ne ... 18016.html

The UK may not accept EU ID cards in the future so entry will be via passport only.

Plus the Immigration Rules will apply, rather than EEA regs so we can start refusing entry to EU nationals at the border, who can’t satisfy meeting immigration rules.

Presumably the EU nations can apply the same logic to UK citizens they are not happy with.

Yes. Like every other normal country does around the world.

Dutchy wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

The UK may not accept EU ID cards in the future so entry will be via passport only.

Plus the Immigration Rules will apply, rather than EEA regs so we can start refusing entry to EU nationals at the border, who can’t satisfy meeting immigration rules.

Presumably the EU nations can apply the same logic to UK citizens they are not happy with.

Yes. Like every other normal country does around the world.

That's fine and the other way around for the UK, just a 3rd country for the EU.

Yes exactly. But every country not in the EU is a “third country”.

Arion640 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Yes. Like every other normal country does around the world.

That's fine and the other way around for the UK, just a 3rd country for the EU.

Yes exactly. But every country not in the EU is a “third country”.

With widely varying alignment to the EU, however, depending on treaties and agreements (which the EU has with the USA as well, by the way – it's not all about FTAs).

And BoJo is now going for the least possible alignment, so somewhere next to North Korea, apparently, when you're listening to him.

Klaus wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

No, you can't "start" doing that because the UK always already could while still being an EU member!

That you actually believe this lie is one thing, but that you believe the lie that EU immigration was somehow to the detriment of the UK and you and many others based their votes on these lies is part of the tragedy but also of the cynical comedy about this.

And given that we did not apply the Immigration Rules under the 1971 or 2007 Act, to EU nationals, you are completely incorrect in your comments. However from 01/01/21, the Immigration Rules under 71 or 2007 Act will apply to EU nationals and not the EEA regs.

All EU countries have already had the ability to kick out EU immigrants who'd fit the descriptions the brexiters keep quoting in their reasoning for Brexit. There's nothing you've gained there.

Yes I know. I don’t know anyone who said otherwise.

Dutchy wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

The UK may not accept EU ID cards in the future so entry will be via passport only.

Plus the Immigration Rules will apply, rather than EEA regs so we can start refusing entry to EU nationals at the border, who can’t satisfy meeting immigration rules.

Presumably the EU nations can apply the same logic to UK citizens they are not happy with.

Yes. Like every other normal country does around the world.

That's fine and the other way around for the UK, just a 3rd country for the EU.

Indeed. I am sure our respective immigration services will be kept very busy for next few years and beyond.

I am looking forward to getting my UK passport stamped again, if I don’t use the Irish one.

Arion640 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Yes. Like every other normal country does around the world.

That's fine and the other way around for the UK, just a 3rd country for the EU.

Yes exactly. But every country not in the EU is a “third country”.

That can depend on the regulation as in some regulation "third country" is defined as every country outside EFTA, whereas other regulations mention the EU or EEA.

Well, that didn't take long:

EU takes first steps to weaken London’s role as finance hub.

Officials in Berlin, Brussels and Paris are looking to amend the EU's post-crisis financial rulebook known as MiFID II by walking away from concessions to the U.K. in the six years it took to complete the EU regulations.

After Brexit, London's financial services firms’ access to the EU will depend on a process known as equivalence under which Britain would have to prove to Brussels that its rules are at least as stringent as the bloc’s.The equivalence system that will govern finance gives the EU unilateral power to decide if British rules are tough enough to create a level playing field.

Combining this surprise MiFID review with the need for equivalence allows the EU the possibility to move the goalposts and gives the EU more leverage in the upcoming trade negotiations by forcing the UK to either accept the principle it will abide by rules it would never have agreed to as an EU member, or risk seeing its financial services locked out on short notice,

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ium-europe

Taking back control, was it?

And there is no reason to give a 3rd country special privileges. Trade agreements include negotiations of this privilege in exchange for that one. Did anyone in the UK think otherwise?

sabenapilot wrote:

Well, that didn't take long:

EU takes first steps to weaken London’s role as finance hub.

Officials in Berlin, Brussels and Paris are looking to amend the EU's post-crisis financial rulebook known as MiFID II by walking away from concessions to the U.K. in the six years it took to complete the EU regulations.

After Brexit, London's financial services firms’ access to the EU will depend on a process known as equivalence under which Britain would have to prove to Brussels that its rules are at least as stringent as the bloc’s.The equivalence system that will govern finance gives the EU unilateral power to decide if British rules are tough enough to create a level playing field.

Combining this surprise MiFID review with the need for equivalence allows the EU the possibility to move the goalposts and gives the EU more leverage in the upcoming trade negotiations by forcing the UK to either accept the principle it will abide by rules it would never have agreed to as an EU member, or risk seeing its financial services locked out on short notice,

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ium-europe

Taking back control, was it?

This will have to apply globally, so unless they want to end up blocking out all other nations financial services (or they don't mind being blocked from the rest of the world), the EU rules and regulations will have to be manageable and acceptable.Which in turn means UK will be able to manage them and won't be harmed.

Or do I have that wrong and targeting nations to punish them is what the EU is promising to do to one nation after another?

Tugg

Dutchy wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

That's fine and the other way around for the UK, just a 3rd country for the EU.

Indeed. I am sure our respective immigration services will be kept very busy for next few years and beyond.

I am looking forward to getting my UK passport stamped again, if I don’t use the Irish one.

you are looking forward to more hassle at the border? You have all kinds of people I guess.

Can’t be any worse than the US border.

Dutchy wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Well, that didn't take long:

EU takes first steps to weaken London’s role as finance hub.

Officials in Berlin, Brussels and Paris are looking to amend the EU's post-crisis financial rulebook known as MiFID II by walking away from concessions to the U.K. in the six years it took to complete the EU regulations.

After Brexit, London's financial services firms’ access to the EU will depend on a process known as equivalence under which Britain would have to prove to Brussels that its rules are at least as stringent as the bloc’s.The equivalence system that will govern finance gives the EU unilateral power to decide if British rules are tough enough to create a level playing field.

Combining this surprise MiFID review with the need for equivalence allows the EU the possibility to move the goalposts and gives the EU more leverage in the upcoming trade negotiations by forcing the UK to either accept the principle it will abide by rules it would never have agreed to as an EU member, or risk seeing its financial services locked out on short notice,

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ium-europe

Taking back control, was it?

Downingstreet listen too much to the City anyway. Good that the rules for banks are tightened, 2007 isn't forgotten and actually the situation could be much worse now, then back in 2007.

I actually agree with you Dutchy. Bankers are a hated species in Britain.

Tugger wrote:

This will have to apply globally, so unless they want to end up blocking out all other nations financial services (or they don't mind being blocked from the rest of the world), the EU rules and regulations will have to be manageable and acceptable.Which in turn means UK will be able to manage them and won't be harmed.

The same rules apply to all third country financial institutions which want access to the EU market, same as US rules and regulations apply to all foreign financial institutions wanting to access the US market.

Nothing new, really, just with the UK brexiting it kicks itself out of the EU market and is now by its own choice subject to the same external access rules and by its own choice stripped of any control of those rules and probably also of even just the existence of some of the rules it had once inserted for its own benefit.

Or do I have that wrong and targeting nations to punish them is what the EU is promising to do to one nation after another?

That silly "punishment" nonsense again.

This is simply european rules and regulations actually applied as they were intended to be without having holes punched into them by the UK government at the EU level with the now deliberately discarded vote and veto.

It's all just in the "real and perfectly predictable consequences of your own choices" section of Brexit.

There have been warnings aplenty, but the brexiters thought the EU and all its ideas about rules and regulations were just a silly joke and they couldn't stop snickering.

Well, that may change, and they have only themselves to blame for the fallout of what they themselves have wrought.

Klaus wrote:

The UK has lots of its own domestic issues such as its crappy and effectively nonexistent citizenship system which needs to be fixed UK-domestically but your leaders instead blamed the consequences of your own decrepit system on the EU as the catch-all scapegoat like pretty much every other domestic problem (notably including many problems those same politicians had actively created themselves).

And no leaver is able to even consider this.

Tugger wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Well, that didn't take long:

EU takes first steps to weaken London’s role as finance hub.

Officials in Berlin, Brussels and Paris are looking to amend the EU's post-crisis financial rulebook known as MiFID II by walking away from concessions to the U.K. in the six years it took to complete the EU regulations.

After Brexit, London's financial services firms’ access to the EU will depend on a process known as equivalence under which Britain would have to prove to Brussels that its rules are at least as stringent as the bloc’s.The equivalence system that will govern finance gives the EU unilateral power to decide if British rules are tough enough to create a level playing field.

Combining this surprise MiFID review with the need for equivalence allows the EU the possibility to move the goalposts and gives the EU more leverage in the upcoming trade negotiations by forcing the UK to either accept the principle it will abide by rules it would never have agreed to as an EU member, or risk seeing its financial services locked out on short notice,

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ium-europe

Taking back control, was it?

This will have to apply globally, so unless they want to end up blocking out all other nations financial services (or they don't mind being blocked from the rest of the world), the EU rules and regulations will have to be manageable and acceptable.Which in turn means UK will be able to manage them and won't be harmed.

Or do I have that wrong and targeting nations to punish them is what the EU is promising to do to one nation after another?

Tugg

If any third country find not manageable and not acceptable the EU rules, it just have to stay out of EU market. As before Brexit.
But for this new third country called UK that's very different, it used to be the bigger in this market, with privilege and able to influence the rules (BIG influence). Now? It's out. Unable to influence anything of the rules of this market and where it shines. It is still a huge player, of course, but for how long in these conditions ?At Brexit day 5, Germany and France starts setting up the playing field to fight extracting growth by cannibalizing UK marketshare

But hey, Leavers knew Brexit would mean huge loss with EU trade. After all worldwide growth is outside of EU, they say UK will recover and even improve the lost business due to Brexit ( we can't use this word anymore) with the fantastic Nigerian or Pakistanian economy, you know, they enjoy such a growth. (teasing A101 here )

Tugger wrote:

This will have to apply globally, so unless they want to end up blocking out all other nations financial services.....

Tugg

The EU does want to block out other nation's financial services. That has always been the case. That's the reason why substantial such services have been placed in a 40+ years EU member country. Governed by EU regulation only, as opposed to possibly conflicting regulation among EU and a 3rd party service provider home country. So of course it will mostly move to a remaining EU country to keep life simple.

Depending on what rules the UK may decide upon it could become a place for grey market or even criminal activity. If it happens anything like this, then good and law abiding EU businesses will totally avoid UK services simply because partially relying on UK provided services would carry the risk of extra time consuming investigations by EU authorities.

It's a law of nature that the UK will not in the long run be a substantial financial service provider for the EU. Not because there will be something wrong with the UK, but simply because they are not an EU country any longer. Turkey, Ukraine, Moldova and the UK are just equally irrelevant in this respect. Nothing will happen overnight, however. At least not over the next 11 months while the UK is a fully passive EU member.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Now the rest of the world needs to align itself with UK rules? Interesting.

Yes they will need too when exporting to the UK,no different when exporting to the EU

So you ignore the obvious conclusion: don't bother with additional costs and complications for a small UK market, concentrate on the large EU market that you are already set up for.

You are also ignoring that divergence gives free enterprise the opportunity to diversify into other markets, as it stands anything that does not meet EU standards cannot be used in production for other nations own national standards divergence means free enterprise can compete in multiple markets at different standards. Free Enterprise can either still produce for the EU market or say US NZ or even AU markets or both at the same time if it’s cost effective.

Dutchy wrote:

It is logic, Tugg, nothing else. The EU will make it mandatory to have one kind of recharger, what do you think will happen to the rest of the world?

Are you expecting the entire world to change their voltage and plug type requirements just because it’s the EU?

The UK will be free to choose the standards that are the best in the world and not be chained to the decisions of the EU. They can adopt US regulations or create new global standards with their Commonwealth partners. Something the Eu could never do.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Exactly that practical experience actually made in previous decades led to the creation of the common economic policies of the EU, and the EU has indeed become a global leader regarding regulations of all kinds – the USA is too fractured itself to be that beyond very basic standards all US states can actually agree on. The EU is much more effective in that regard, and the UK is now falling back to being an isolated smallish country that's not playing a significant role in most global respects any more.

What has that got to do with the UK determining its own standards absolutely nothing, EU arrogance is outstanding and knows no bounds

It's got a lot to do with it: The UK can set its own standards as much as it wants, but if nobody else bothers to adopt those because it's not economically viable just for one smallish country as a customer, then the UK's own standards become only a trade impediment but exert no actual influence to the outside.

Good Greif. How does the smaller nations like AU/NZ set their own standards survive. I had shown an example of differing fuel standards between AU to EU that doesn’t stop Euro countries from exporting vehicles to AU they use different techniques and or different motors for that market than their own because of the difference in fuels standards.

Klaus wrote:

You need to be big enough to manage that, and the EU is, but not even Germany could achieve that on its own, so the UK being much weaker in actual trade doesn't have any better chance in that either. It's got nothing to do with Germany being "better" than the UK, it's just a matter of size.

What tosh of course it could, those who want to trade with Germany will adhere to its sovereign national standards

Klaus wrote:

And that is just the cold, hard reality which is one of the reasons why the European Union was built in the first place (among many others, but it's still an important aspect). It's not maligning the UK, it is just how the world works and if there is any accusation to make it's that Boris Johnson and his accomplices have actively been trying to obfuscate this inconvenient fact.

The original concept was to preserve the just won peace in Europe under the ECSC by creating a common market for coal and steel and natural resources. No one is suggesting it was not a worthy goal, but the mechanism from its humble beginnings have gone too far, it might be something that continental Europeans in favour of but not for the majority who voted in the EU referenda.

These EU lot are starting to sound like Americans who think they have influence on other countries and get them to do things. One such example took place on the a.net civil aviation forum where it was suggested the US should ban Lufthansa flying to Iran.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

It is logic, Tugg, nothing else. The EU will make it mandatory to have one kind of recharger, what do you think will happen to the rest of the world?

Are you expecting the entire world to change their voltage and plug type requirements just because it’s the EU?

Nobody is talking about that, first make sure you understand the issue, second make your views known on the basis of facts.

Yes you were, the context in this discussion is as some on here put it the “Brussels effect” you are talking about future electric car charges and the EU will make it mandatory for a certain type in the EU, you are suggesting that because of production costs all the other nations will follow EU rules for car charges. Until there is a single world government body I seriously doubt what you suggested will happen.

Arion640 wrote:

These EU lot are starting to sound like Americans who think they have influence on other countries and get them to do things. One such example took place on the a.net civil aviation forum where it was suggested the US should ban Lufthansa flying to Iran.

The US is actually aggressively pursuing european businesses dealing with Iran with sanctions. So that's already happening, just not necessarily specifically with Lufthansa.

You all forget we retain our soft empire, the commonwealth. We are never alone.

Arion640 wrote:

You all forget we retain our soft empire, the commonwealth. We are never alone.

Worked brilliantely in the 1970s too, didn't it?

Which is why Britain decided it had no other option but to save itself from economic bankruptcy by joining the EEC.

The British Commonwealth is nothing but political nostalgia and war grave maintenance... similar to the CIS really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwea ... ent_States

sabenapilot wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

You all forget we retain our soft empire, the commonwealth. We are never alone.

Worked brilliantely in the 1970s too, didn't it?

Which is why Britain decided it had no other option but to save itself from economic bankruptcy by joining the EEC.

The British Commonwealth is nothing but political nostalgia and war grave maintenance... similar to the CIS really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwea ... ent_States

Times have changed since the 1970’s. Economies have moved on and living standards changed. It’s a whole new game.

You must quite like the 70’s, hence your username.

A101 wrote:

Good Greif. How does the smaller nations like AU/NZ set their own standards survive. I had shown an example of differing fuel standards between AU to EU that doesn’t stop Euro countries from exporting vehicles to AU they use different techniques and or different motors for that market than their own because of the difference in fuels standards.

When they set their own standards they erect a barrier to imports which foreign exporters will need to overcome, and the more divergent those standards and the smaller the country the fewer exporters will bother with that, constricting choice for the consumers and businesses in that country.

That can be intentional, but it always restricts trade.

And only the biggest blocs and countries can actually hope for their own standards being adopted by other countries; The EU is one of the very few such exceptions, but the UK will almost certainly not manage that, same as the other mid-sized countries.

This was different when England ruled an empire and simply dictated its rules and regulations to its colonies, but the UK doesn't have any colonies any more, maybe except for Gibraltar and Northern Ireland.

What tosh of course it could, those who want to trade with Germany will adhere to its sovereign national standards

Nowadays any EU manufacturer can automatically ship their products all over the EU and even foreign exporters have to deal with just one EU compliance regime for the entire Single Market of 450 million consumers (and corresponding businesses). "sovereign national standards" have mostly been replaced with Single Market standards jointly agreed between the sovereign EU member countries.

The enormous gravitational pull of that huge market and its political and legal framework makes it attractive even for other countries to adopt parts of those same rules for themselves so they have it easier to import from and to export to the European Union, which reduces frictions and gives an advantage to businesses and consumers there.

The UK diverging from the EU, on the other hand, erects new barriers which impede trade in both directions because there is an extra cost to even just validate compliance even if it factually happens to exist, and the UK market is too small for any other countries to bother adopting any UK rules because that only makes it harder for them to trade with the EU without UK trade being able to make up the shortfall.

The original concept was to preserve the just won peace in Europe under the ECSC by creating a common market for coal and steel and natural resources.

Yes, but ironically pushed primarily by the UK under Thatcher the EEC/EU then also developed the Single Market on top of this peace project, and that's what we're talking about here!

No one is suggesting it was not a worthy goal, but the mechanism from its humble beginnings have gone too far, it might be something that continental Europeans in favour of but not for the majority who voted in the EU referenda.

The Single Market was actually a very good idea and it is a major stability factor now.

Too bad the current UK government is hell-bent on shutting itself out from it.

Talking about regulation divergence... The UK gov having failed to come up with their own list of areas of divergence from the EU, failed to find businesses asking for divergence, is now hoping the public is able to help.
https://www.ft.com/content/4b0d8310-435 ... 7a29cd66fe

Expect return of bendy bananas and cucumbers to be on top of the wishlist.

Grizzly410 wrote:

Talking about regulation divergence... The UK gov having failed to come up with their own list of areas of divergence from the EU, failed to find businesses asking for divergence, is now hoping the public is able to help.
https://www.ft.com/content/4b0d8310-435 ... 7a29cd66fe

Expect return of bendy bananas and cucumbers to be on top of the wishlist.

Like I have said before, they have no substance to their blustering plattitudes whatsoever and it's beginning to become obvious for all to see…

My take still remains:

the UK Government will strongly "refuse any legal alignment with the EU's SM" to satisfy an out-of-touch electoral base who just want to believe the mantra the UK did make a clean break with the EU and then come up with someting like "letting British industry decide what's best for them" (sounds very Tory doesn't it?), for instance by not having any British standards at all ("cutting red tape" as they'd tend to say), after which the UK's industry effectively follows all of the EU standards to the letter like before because they will find that's what's making most sense for them…

Remember the old scapegoat for all that went wrong in the UK is soon gone, so British politics must now move in such a way that whatever comes next, they are not the ones to take the blame for any lack of success nor the lack of any tangible change. It increasinly seems like the plan is to shift responsabilty for the pending disillusion over to the business community as a whole for not grasping the titanic opportunities offered to them by those brilliant politicians in Westminster!

Let's make a safe bet and say the vast majority of "red tape" identified by the general public will have originated from the UK government.
Similar to how Boris Johnson got done like a kipper by the EU after his rant about the need for smoked fish to be wrapped in plastic:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... y-18335542

Ertro wrote:

I sense that several of you were writing sarcastically bu I wanted to write it in clear since we have somebody in here who refuse to believe the obvious and are writing about some wall plug things which this is not about. UK can have its own weird wall plug and nobody wants to take that away.

Indeed, this is not about the weird wall plug at all!

Somehow, Brexiteers always get obsessed with those typically British visual features of life and think that's all there's to it: before you know it, the Sun runs a story about the EU trying to force British households to renovate their entire house's electricity system!

sabenapilot wrote:

Ertro wrote:

I sense that several of you were writing sarcastically bu I wanted to write it in clear since we have somebody in here who refuse to believe the obvious and are writing about some wall plug things which this is not about. UK can have its own weird wall plug and nobody wants to take that away.

Indeed, this is not about the weird wall plug at all!

Somehow, Brexiteers always get obsessed with those typically British visual features of life and think that's all there's to it: before you know it, the Sun runs a story about the EU trying to force British households to renovate their entire house's electricity system!

You made me search for "plugs" in the wonderful Euromyths Index from the EU commission only to discover it doesn't exist anymore, very likely one of the first Brexit casualty
It points to an archive, the index is visible but the links for each entry are dead.
https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20 ... a-z-index/

Grizzly410 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Ertro wrote:

I sense that several of you were writing sarcastically bu I wanted to write it in clear since we have somebody in here who refuse to believe the obvious and are writing about some wall plug things which this is not about. UK can have its own weird wall plug and nobody wants to take that away.

Indeed, this is not about the weird wall plug at all!

Somehow, Brexiteers always get obsessed with those typically British visual features of life and think that's all there's to it: before you know it, the Sun runs a story about the EU trying to force British households to renovate their entire house's electricity system!

You made me search for "plugs" in the wonderful Euromyths Index from the EU commission only to discover it doesn't exist anymore, very likely one of the first Brexit casualty
It points to an archive, the index is visible but the links for each entry are dead.
https://wayback.archive-it.org/11980/20 ... a-z-index/

Indeed, it hasn't been communicated widely, but the euromyth website is no longer updated and likely going to be discontinued even as there's nobody but the British press which was spreading them anyway...

The EU clearly expects the UK's political class and its news outlets to behave normally towards it now, just as it does towards other foreign befriended entities, but of course, that remains to be seen as old habits die hard, especially in Britain!

As I've just posted in another tread:

sabenapilot wrote:

Let's get this put clearly once and for all, shall we?
The EU is now a foreign entity and a very important one too for the UK if I may add as it is the UK's single most important trading partner for decades to come: as such it deserves a minimum of respect.

Just as the UK doesn't go about promoting secessionist groups in the USA or Canada and treads very carefully not to infuriate the PRC over Tibet for instance, British politicians and the British press better start watching their words in relation to the EU too, as from now: you do not spit in the face of befriended (group of) nations, especially not if you want them to do you a big trading favour!

Arion640 wrote:

You all forget we retain our soft empire, the commonwealth. We are never alone.

I know many, many people from various commonwealth countries.... don't hold your breath.

If anything, coming in as the ex-"colonial b***tards" is a hindrance.

sabenapilot wrote:

Ertro wrote:

I sense that several of you were writing sarcastically bu I wanted to write it in clear since we have somebody in here who refuse to believe the obvious and are writing about some wall plug things which this is not about. UK can have its own weird wall plug and nobody wants to take that away.

Indeed, this is not about the weird wall plug at all!

Somehow, Brexiteers always get obsessed with those typically British visual features of life and think that's all there's to it: before you know it, the Sun runs a story about the EU trying to force British households to renovate their entire house's electricity system!

Made me think of this one https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obriens-brexit-top-10-three-pin-plugs

agill wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Ertro wrote:

I sense that several of you were writing sarcastically bu I wanted to write it in clear since we have somebody in here who refuse to believe the obvious and are writing about some wall plug things which this is not about. UK can have its own weird wall plug and nobody wants to take that away.

Indeed, this is not about the weird wall plug at all!

Somehow, Brexiteers always get obsessed with those typically British visual features of life and think that's all there's to it: before you know it, the Sun runs a story about the EU trying to force British households to renovate their entire house's electricity system!

Made me think of this one https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obriens-brexit-top-10-three-pin-plugs

I'm glad this was written. I poked my head in here for just a couple posts to see what was going on and was thinking "is this seriously why they've had all these threads that go on and on in perpetuity.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

You all forget we retain our soft empire, the commonwealth. We are never alone.

I know many, many people from various commonwealth countries.... don't hold your breath.

If anything, coming in as the ex-"colonial b***tards" is a hindrance.

That’s a highly offensive comment.

Besides, the french, dutch and spanish empires committed equally as worse atrocities.

Arion640 wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

You all forget we retain our soft empire, the commonwealth. We are never alone.

I know many, many people from various commonwealth countries.... don't hold your breath.

If anything, coming in as the ex-"colonial b***tards" is a hindrance.

That’s a highly offensive comment.

Besides, the french, dutch and spanish empires committed equally as worse atrocities.

And you may add my own country to that list too.

The difference being however is that none of them dreams about somehow reviving it with them again at the center of the imperial hub, nor expect the former subjects overseas to somehow do them a favour 'for good old times sake'!

Those times weren't as good for them at all and whereas there's not necessarily any lust for revenge on their minds, they aren't particularly going to bend over backwards for some all too obvious sudden dishonest gallantry from a PM calling people from the Commonwealth piccaninnies either!

https://binged.it/2S1it1t

sabenapilot wrote:

Well, that didn't take long:

EU takes first steps to weaken London’s role as finance hub.

Officials in Berlin, Brussels and Paris are looking to amend the EU's post-crisis financial rulebook known as MiFID II by walking away from concessions to the U.K. in the six years it took to complete the EU regulations.

After Brexit, London's financial services firms’ access to the EU will depend on a process known as equivalence under which Britain would have to prove to Brussels that its rules are at least as stringent as the bloc’s.The equivalence system that will govern finance gives the EU unilateral power to decide if British rules are tough enough to create a level playing field.

Combining this surprise MiFID review with the need for equivalence allows the EU the possibility to move the goalposts and gives the EU more leverage in the upcoming trade negotiations by forcing the UK to either accept the principle it will abide by rules it would never have agreed to as an EU member, or risk seeing its financial services locked out on short notice,

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ium-europe

Taking back control, was it?

Now it really starts... EU will squeeze Lundon finance hub one cut after the other...

Meanwhile, the EU is upping the pressure on the very first element of discussion of the EU-UK FTA: continued access to British waters, by going after highest possible quota shares in return for continued British access to European fisheries markets!

The European Union's Western coastal states that fish in British waters are pushing for a tougher stance than the one laid down in chief negotiator Michel Barnier’s draft negotiating mandate at a meeting of European Union ambassadors in Brussels on Wednesday.

The EU wanted to maintain the status quo that grants its member states 35% of the quantity of fish from British waters, with the richest harvest for France, the Netherlands and Denmark. All 3 of them, along with Belgium and Portugal, said the text on fisheries needed to be made stronger than that before ministers will approve Barnier’s mandate at the end of the month. A revised text is expected by the end of the week.

The issue of continued access to British waters was inseparable from the access to EU fisheries markets for British fish as well as the respective volumes of both flows: two-thirds of fresh fish caught by British boats are currently exported to the EU...

In all, diplomats were said to be very happy with Barnier’s draft text so far, which sums up the EU’s long-established positions – including the exclusion of Gibraltar from any EU-UK trade deal. Diplomatic sources say the document is more likely to become tougher however, rather than weaker under the ongoing scrutiny of member states, before its adoption on 25 February.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -uk-waters

The pattern is starting to show already on Brexit day number 5: the EU is tightening the screws one by one on the UK, now that it can be treated like just a third country!

So why doesn't Norelco just have its cords and a USB charger? grrr