Shoppers still paying for Brussels red tape despite Brexit (Express)

[pellinore]

The Daily Express has just realised that the UK food manufacturers will have to change their labels when the EU tells them to. Fair enough, they are our most important trade partner, but it is a shame we no longer have a say in those rules. And it is impossible to believe that the hundreds of millions of pounds it will cost won't mean price increases.

This year the scheme will be extended to apply to products sold in any part of the UK and the items affected are determined by EU rules - which Brussels has the power to change.

For example, the EU decided earlier this year that products containing seasoning and rice from India, or Thai chilli peppers, will require labelling unless manufacturers confirm that the ingredients came from an EU-approved producer. Meanwhile, breakfast cereals and chocolate spreads were recently removed from the products affected.

Manufacturers say they will be forced to re-label products every time EU and UK food law diverges. They are urging the Government to scrap plans to impose the rules on goods that never leave the UK mainland.

Shoppers still paying for Brussels red tape despite Brexit | Politics | News | Express.co.uk

Edited March 4 by pellinore

[Destination Unknown]

29 minutes ago, pellinore said:

The Daily Express has just realised that the UK food manufacturers will have to change their labels when the EU tells them to. Fair enough, they are our most important trade partner, but it is a shame we no longer have a say in those rules. And it is impossible to believe that the hundreds of millions of pounds it will cost won't mean price increases.

This year the scheme will be extended to apply to products sold in any part of the UK and the items affected are determined by EU rules - which Brussels has the power to change.

For example, the EU decided earlier this year that products containing seasoning and rice from India, or Thai chilli peppers, will require labelling unless manufacturers confirm that the ingredients came from an EU-approved producer. Meanwhile, breakfast cereals and chocolate spreads were recently removed from the products affected.

Manufacturers say they will be forced to re-label products every time EU and UK food law diverges. They are urging the Government to scrap plans to impose the rules on goods that never leave the UK mainland.

Shoppers still paying for Brussels red tape despite Brexit | Politics | News | Express.co.uk

And how many hundreds of millions of pounds did it cost for food manufacturers to put the amount of jargon the EU has ruled is required to be put on food packaging whenever the EU told them to whilst we were in the EU then? 🤔

https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/product-requirements/food-labelling/general-rules/index_en.htm

Edited March 4 by Destination Unknown

[pellinore]

19 minutes ago, Destination Unknown said:

And how many hundreds of millions of pounds did it cost for food manufacturers to put the amount of jargon the EU has ruled is required to be put on food packaging whenever the EU told them to whilst we were in the EU then? 🤔

https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/product-requirements/food-labelling/general-rules/index_en.htm

Steve, you haven't changed. Your lack of understanding and knowledge is truly outstanding. Do you think that now the UK can just put a slab of beef into a container and sell it anywhere (other than to one of our own kebab shops)?

[Destination Unknown]

2 minutes ago, pellinore said:

Steve, you haven't changed. Your lack of understanding and knowledge is truly outstanding. Do you think that now the UK can just put a slab of beef into a container and sell it anywhere (other than to one of our own kebab shops)?

Why are you trying to deflect pellinore?

Again, how many hundreds of millions of pounds did it cost for food manufacturers to put the amount of jargon the EU has ruled is required to be put on food packaging whenever the EU told them to whilst we were in the EU? 🤔

https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/product-requirements/food-labelling/general-rules/index_en.htm

[pellinore]

46 minutes ago, Destination Unknown said:

Why are you trying to deflect pellinore?

Again, how many hundreds of millions of pounds did it cost for food manufacturers to put the amount of jargon the EU has ruled is required to be put on food packaging whenever the EU told them to whilst we were in the EU? 🤔

https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/product-requirements/food-labelling/general-rules/index_en.htm

See what I mean? What you call jargon, normal people call information. Ever heard of nut allergies? Food intolerances? Harmful additives? Saturated and unsaturated fats? Sugars? Salts? I know in the 1950s hardy UK citizens happily bought rancid chicken pies and sometimes died of salmonella in a food Russian roulette, but times have moved on.

[Duke Wellington]

44 minutes ago, pellinore said:

See what I mean? What you call jargon, normal people call information. Ever heard of nut allergies? Food intolerances? Harmful additives? Saturated and unsaturated fats? Sugars? Salts? I know in the 1950s hardy UK citizens happily bought rancid chicken pies and sometimes died of salmonella in a food Russian roulette, but times have moved on.

Ah, the 1950s, when people had so much more purchasing power for their money. Shame the EU eroded away that. We used to make everything too, where`s that gone? The Prussians and the Chinese.

The Prussians as they set the EU for all the decent industry to drain into it, and the Chinese who all the lost cost manufacturing moved to thanks to the EU taking away our trade barriers.

Thumbs up the the EU!

[OpenMindedSceptic]

3 hours ago, pellinore said:

The Daily Express has just realised that the UK food manufacturers will have to change their labels when the EU tells them to. Fair enough, they are our most important trade partner, but it is a shame we no longer have a say in those rules. And it is impossible to believe that the hundreds of millions of pounds it will cost won't mean price increases.

This year the scheme will be extended to apply to products sold in any part of the UK and the items affected are determined by EU rules - which Brussels has the power to change.

For example, the EU decided earlier this year that products containing seasoning and rice from India, or Thai chilli peppers, will require labelling unless manufacturers confirm that the ingredients came from an EU-approved producer. Meanwhile, breakfast cereals and chocolate spreads were recently removed from the products affected.

Manufacturers say they will be forced to re-label products every time EU and UK food law diverges. They are urging the Government to scrap plans to impose the rules on goods that never leave the UK mainland.

Shoppers still paying for Brussels red tape despite Brexit | Politics | News | Express.co.uk

Ooooh, the price of labels will be debilitating lol, lmao.

Meanwhile the beauracracy from the EU is plain for all to see. 

What a complete shower the EU gravy train snout in the trough, £6k a month pension, money grabbing MEP's are.

Thankfully we are nearly out.

[Destination Unknown]

2 hours ago, pellinore said:

See what I mean? What you call jargon, normal people call information. Ever heard of nut allergies? Food intolerances? Harmful additives? Saturated and unsaturated fats? Sugars? Salts? I know in the 1950s hardy UK citizens happily bought rancid chicken pies and sometimes died of salmonella in a food Russian roulette, but times have moved on.

Then presumably whatever the EU decides will be required on food packaging going into the future will also be "information" as well then wouldn't it pellinore, unless of course you're admitting that Brussels just deliberately decides to put more "information" on their packaging for the sake of red tape, which seems to be the basis of your original "point" in the first place, as per your headline "Shoppers still paying for Brussels red tape", which we would be doing anyway even if we were still in the EU. 🤦

Alright, let's do it your pedantic little way then shall we. Again, how many hundreds of millions of pounds did it cost for food manufacturers to put the amount of "information" the EU has ruled is required to be put on food packaging whenever the EU told them to whilst we were in the EU? 🤔

https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/product-requirements/food-labelling/general-rules/index_en.htm

 

And as for salmonella in food, how did the EU's "information" on food packaging stop the surge in salmonella cases in the EU then pellinore. 🤔

Ahhh yes, that's right, it didn't did it. 🤦👇👇👇👇

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/ROA_S-Enteritidis-ST11_chicken-meat_2023_amended.pdf

Edited March 5 by Destination Unknown

[pellinore]

21 hours ago, Destination Unknown said:

 which seems to be the basis of your original "point" in the first place, as per your headline "Shoppers still paying for Brussels red tape", which we would be doing anyway even if we were still in the EU. 🤦

It wasn't my point, and neither was it my headline; I was quoting an article from the Express. Contact them if you think they have got it wrong- in this case they haven't, complying with EU rules will cost millions and add to food inflation- the UK manufacturers say that.

Brexit supporters don't seem to realise that "sovereignty" doesn't mean we can ignore international law and regulations - as the Rwanda supporters are gradually finding out as well.

[Slugnutty]

39 minutes ago, pellinore said:

It wasn't my point, and neither was it my headline; I was quoting an article from the Express. Contact them if you think they have got it wrong- in this case they haven't, complying with EU rules will cost millions and add to food inflation- the UK manufacturers say that.

Brexit supporters don't seem to realise that "sovereignty" doesn't mean we can ignore international law and regulations - as the Rwanda supporters are gradually finding out as well.

Is the point here that the UK paid hundreds of millions pre-brexit, and will continue to need to pay these hundreds of millions post-brexit? So there is nothing gained or lost? Unless there was a belief these costs would disappear or are unnecessary. But who would have thought this?

[pellinore]

15 minutes ago, Slugnutty said:

Is the point here that the UK paid hundreds of millions pre-brexit, and will continue to need to pay these hundreds of millions post-brexit? So there is nothing gained or lost? Unless there was a belief these costs would disappear or are unnecessary. But who would have thought this?

No, the EU is a single market, so trade is carried out completely freely. Prior to Brexit, a small bicycle shop in the UK, for example, could sell to a customer in Poland, say, as easily as they could sell to someone in Edinburgh or Manchester. Now they can't.

It is all down to trade rules- the UK decided to be a third country and to be outside the single market. Prior to Brexit trade was free. The EU is a trading bloc with an internal, free market to generate prosperity.

This is why the UK is losing £100 billion per year and slowly sliding down the pan.

Edited March 6 by pellinore

[Destination Unknown]

2 hours ago, pellinore said:

It wasn't my point, and neither was it my headline; I was quoting an article from the Express. Contact them if you think they have got it wrong- in this case they haven't, complying with EU rules will cost millions and add to food inflation- the UK manufacturers say that.

Brexit supporters don't seem to realise that "sovereignty" doesn't mean we can ignore international law and regulations - as the Rwanda supporters are gradually finding out as well.

But it was you that quoted it though pellinore, obviously for no other reason than because of your pointless crusade to try and blame absolutely everything negative on Brexit, so how many times are you going to continue to avoid the obvious question that has naturally arisen as a direct result of your own post?

The claim is that complying with EU rules will cost millions and add to food inflation post-Brexit, but if complying with EU rules post-Brexit will cost us millions, then quite clearly complying with EU rules pre-Brexit has already cost us even more millions, so how many more millions has it already cost us to comply with EU rules whilst we were members?

How many hundreds of millions of pounds did it cost for food manufacturers to put the amount of "information" the EU has ruled is required to be put on food packaging whenever the EU told them to whilst we were members? 🤔

https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/product-requirements/food-labelling/general-rules/index_en.htm

Edited March 6 by Destination Unknown

[pellinore]

21 hours ago, Destination Unknown said:

The claim is that complying with EU rules will cost millions and add to food inflation post-Brexit, but if complying with EU rules post-Brexit will cost us millions, then quite clearly complying with EU rules pre-Brexit has already cost us even more millions, so how many more millions has it already cost us to comply with EU rules whilst we were members?

How many hundreds of millions of pounds did it cost for food manufacturers to put the amount of "information" the EU has ruled is required to be put on food packaging whenever the EU told them to whilst we were members? 🤔

https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/product-requirements/food-labelling/general-rules/index_en.htm

In all my years on various forums, I have never seen a post quite as stupid as this. It is so wrong, there is no logical grounds it can be addressed. It is breathtaking. I have to hand it to you, DU, to say something like this certainly confounds anyone trying to argue against you.

[pellinore]

22 hours ago, Destination Unknown said:

But it was you that quoted it though pellinore, obviously for no other reason than because of your pointless crusade to try and blame absolutely everything negative on Brexit, so how many times are you going to continue to avoid the obvious question that has naturally arisen as a direct result of your own post?

This may help. The UK has involved itself it a massive amount of red tape and bureaucracy which never existed before, and it all adds costs. Massive costs, and we don't have the border staff (HMRC and Environmental Health) to cope (we need to recruit about 40k people, probably from the EU):

Alongside the lack of tariffs and customs duties, membership of the EU delivered the key trade benefit of removing the “red tape” associated with non-tariff barriers to intra-EU trade such as import or export declarations, documentary requirements, product standards and inspection requirements... 

Since the UK has left the EU’s single market and customs union, the “red tape” has exponentially increased with the introduction of a hard border between the UK and EU.  

Imported goods will only qualify for tariff and quota free access where the respective EU-UK producer or exporter of the goods can prove that the goods “originate” from whichever side exported them – proving origin is all about the qualification and application of product-specific rules of origin. 

These rules ensure that preference under the TCA can only be claimed on goods that originate and are sufficiently processed in either party to meet the relevant product-specific rules of origin.  Where the rules of origin cannot be satisfied (and in certain areas there are “back stop” or tolerance rules that can be used), the full rate of EU or UK duty will apply at the time of importation. However, rules of origin are notoriously difficult – a difficulty which is multiplied by the highly integrated nature of EU-UK supply chains, distribution networks and confusion arising from the transitional arrangements between the EU and UK...

Post-Brexit Trade - KPMG UK

Edited March 6 by pellinore

[Duke Wellington]

1 hour ago, pellinore said:

This may help. The UK has involved itself it a massive amount of red tape and bureaucracy which never existed before, and it all adds costs. Massive costs, and we don't have the border staff (HMRC and Environmental Health) to cope (we need to recruit about 40k people, probably from the EU):

Alongside the lack of tariffs and customs duties, membership of the EU delivered the key trade benefit of removing the “red tape” associated with non-tariff barriers to intra-EU trade such as import or export declarations, documentary requirements, product standards and inspection requirements... 

Since the UK has left the EU’s single market and customs union, the “red tape” has exponentially increased with the introduction of a hard border between the UK and EU.  

Imported goods will only qualify for tariff and quota free access where the respective EU-UK producer or exporter of the goods can prove that the goods “originate” from whichever side exported them – proving origin is all about the qualification and application of product-specific rules of origin. 

These rules ensure that preference under the TCA can only be claimed on goods that originate and are sufficiently processed in either party to meet the relevant product-specific rules of origin.  Where the rules of origin cannot be satisfied (and in certain areas there are “back stop” or tolerance rules that can be used), the full rate of EU or UK duty will apply at the time of importation. However, rules of origin are notoriously difficult – a difficulty which is multiplied by the highly integrated nature of EU-UK supply chains, distribution networks and confusion arising from the transitional arrangements between the EU and UK...

Post-Brexit Trade - KPMG UK

You do realise the source of most of the red tape we are gradually working through to remove is the EU?

[Destination Unknown]

2 hours ago, pellinore said:

In all my years on various forums, I have never seen a post quite as stupid as this. It is so wrong, there is no logical grounds it can be addressed. It is breathtaking. I have to hand it to you, DU, to say something like this certainly confounds anyone trying to argue against you.

No, of course there is no logical grounds it can be addressed pellinore, and that's because your original "point" is illogical to begin with, because even when we were in the EU, we still had to comply with EU rules regarding the amount of "information" the EU has ruled is required to be put on food packaging, and if those rules were to change over time during the course of our membership (which it quite often did in the past) we would still have been required to comply with those new rules, just as we are now "apparently" required to comply with them post-Brexit as well, so I really do not get your point at all pellinore, and that's because you don't actually have a point do you.

Edited March 7 by Destination Unknown

[Duke Wellington]

32 minutes ago, Destination Unknown said:

No, of course there is no logical grounds it can be addressed pellinore, and that's because your original "point" is illogical to begin with, because even when we were in the EU, we still had to comply with EU rules regarding the amount of "information" the EU has ruled is required to be put on food packaging, and if those rules were to change over time during the course of our membership (which it quite often did in the past) we would still have been required to comply with those new rules, just as we are now "apparently" required to comply with them post-Brexit as well, so I really do not get your point at all pellinore, and that's because you don't actually have a point do you.

When we joined the EU and throughout our time in it they literally accumulated a mountain of red tape. The problem for them is they do not decentralise standards making. So, to keep everyone in the block on an equal footing they one standardised and centralised set of millions of rules which all its members have to obey.

I mean why do Brits care if bananas don`t have the correct amount of bendiness? The only criticism on this I have of our government is its taking years to go through them all, to decide what to keep, what to bin, and what to alter.

[Destination Unknown]

7 hours ago, pellinore said:

The UK has involved itself it a massive amount of red tape and bureaucracy which never existed before

The massive amount of red tape and bureaucracy you speak of is entirely down to your beloved EU's intransigence.

The fact that a complete shipment of food destined for Ireland M&S stores was destroyed by EU customs officials at a N Ireland port is just one of many such examples of EU pettiness, and all because just one of the countless forms had been completed in the wrong colour of ink.!!

Yes, you read that right. Just one page out of the 700+ pages was filled out in blue ink instead of black ink. (I once filled out a form in blue ink instead of black ink and guess what? The world didn't end.)

The fact that the overzealous EU border officials would much rather spend the extra time destroying a shipment of perfectly good food instead of using their brains and taking just 10 seconds out of their day to photocopy the "offending" page (which would have given them the page they wanted in black ink anyway), just shows how pathetic and petty your beloved EU really is. I mean, is it only me that can see the absolute insanity of that pellinore? 🤔

That is petty juvenile bureaucracy in itself, not to mention a complete waste of paper resources, especially when each shipment requires paperwork the size of 3 large books.!!

It’s the digital age, and most of the world is in a drive to save the climate/planet, but the EU still insists on reams of paper documentation. I mean, really? 🤦

The technology exists to go digital, but here we have just one example of intransigence regarding change on the EU side; an organisation that promotes not only change, but also saving the climate/planet as well.!! 👇👇👇👇

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1465513/Brexit-news-Northern-Ireland-protocol-Marks-Spencer-food-exports-European-Union-trade-vn#amp-readmore-target

Edited March 7 by Destination Unknown

[Ozymandias]

7 hours ago, Destination Unknown said:

The massive amount of red tape and bureaucracy you speak of is entirely down to your beloved EU's intransigence.

No. It's down to your decision to become a third country, thereby imposing all that import/export paperwork on yourselves.

7 hours ago, Destination Unknown said:

The fact that a complete shipment of food destined for Ireland M&S stores was destroyed by EU customs officials at a N Ireland port is just one of many such examples of EU pettiness, and all because just one of the countless forms had been completed in the wrong colour of ink.!!

I could not verify the veracity of that media report, i.e. where did it happen, etc. It always struck me as an apocryphal tale straight out of a propagandists playbook. No source reference to back it up, just the say-so of two people with bested interests in scuppering the Northern Ireland Protocol. 

7 hours ago, Destination Unknown said:

Yes, you read that right. Just one page out of the 700+ pages was filled out in blue ink instead of black ink. (I once filled out a form in blue ink instead of black ink and guess what? The world didn't end.)

Rules are rules. If it's not a try because a rule was broken in getting it over the line, then it's not a try no matter how hard it was worked for.

7 hours ago, Destination Unknown said:

The fact that the overzealous EU border officials would much rather spend the extra time destroying a shipment of perfectly good food instead of using their brains and taking just 10 seconds out of their day to photocopy the "offending" page (which would have given them the page they wanted in black ink anyway), just shows how pathetic and petty your beloved EU really is. I mean, is it only me that can see the absolute insanity of that pellinore?

Dreadful, isn't it? Imagine, UK exporters cannot get their ducks in a row, but expect the EU official will bail them out for their negligence (if that is what actually happened). Thank God for rules and regulation and for the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) in 2013 or we in the Republic would be eating horsemeat in our burgers. 'Welcome to the Brexit, sir.'  

7 hours ago, Destination Unknown said:

That is petty juvenile bureaucracy in itself, not to mention a complete waste of paper resources, especially when each shipment requires paperwork the size of 3 large books.!!

It is more juvenile that you believe it!

[Destination Unknown]

8 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

No. It's down to your decision to become a third country, thereby imposing all that import/export paperwork on yourselves.

I could not verify the veracity of that media report, i.e. where did it happen, etc. It always struck me as an apocryphal tale straight out of a propagandists playbook. No source reference to back it up, just the say-so of two people with bested interests in scuppering the Northern Ireland Protocol. 

Rules are rules. If it's not a try because a rule was broken in getting it over the line, then it's not a try no matter how hard it was worked for.

Dreadful, isn't it? Imagine, UK exporters cannot get their ducks in a row, but expect the EU official will bail them out for their negligence (if that is what actually happened). Thank God for rules and regulation and for the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) in 2013 or we in the Republic would be eating horsemeat in our burgers. 'Welcome to the Brexit, sir.'  

It is more juvenile that you believe it!

It came from the chairman of Marks & Spencer, Archie Norman.

Instead of destroying that food, surely the common sense thing to do would have been to at least maybe give it away to food banks, or even sell it cheaply to starving third world countries instead. But then again, "common sense" and "the EU" don't go together, and it just proves to me once again that your beloved EU is a lumbering arthritic dinosaur that's obviously not fit for purpose in today's fast paced modern world. 👇👇👇👇

https://metro.co.uk/2021/07/24/lorries-crossing-irish-border-turned-away-because-of-wrong-ink-on-documents-14983314/

Meanwhile, in your beloved EU, Dutch flower growers have been pleading with the UK government to delay post-Brexit border checks to prevent damage to their industry.

Dreadful, isn't it Ozy? Imagine, EU exporters cannot get their ducks in a row, but yet they expect that UK officials will bail them out for their negligence. After all, rules are rules aren't they Ozy. 🤔

What was it that Dutch border officials gleefully said when they were confiscating sandwiches and other foodstuffs from drivers arriving in the Netherlands from the UK after the UK's democratically mandated exit from the European Union? 🤔

Ahhh yes, that was it: "Welcome to the Brexit, sir." Ooops. 🤦👇👇👇👇

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/flower-expert-issues-grim-valentines-31851154

Edited March 7 by Destination Unknown

[pellinore]

46 minutes ago, Destination Unknown said:

Instead of destroying that food, surely the common sense thing to do would have been to at least maybe give it away to food banks, or even sell it cheaply to starving third world countries instead. 

M and S has lost hundreds of millions due to Brexit and the UK Treasury has lost revenue: Marks & Spencer blames Brexit as it closes 11 French stores - BBC News 

Have you never heard of food shops destroying stocks at the end of the day, or clothing stores pulping stock? They all do it, because that is how companies are run. If Tesco's held a giveaway of free unsold food at 11pm every night, they would go out of business. So now you think M and S should give their stock away? I don't know if the story you quote is true, but it is hardly patriotic to urge our companies to give stuff away free.

 

[Destination Unknown]

4 minutes ago, pellinore said:

M and S has lost hundreds of millions due to Brexit and the UK Treasury has lost revenue: Marks & Spencer blames Brexit as it closes 11 French stores - BBC News 

Have you never heard of food shops destroying stocks at the end of the day, or clothing stores pulping stock? They all do it, because that is how companies are run. If Tesco's held a giveaway of free unsold food at 11pm every night, they would go out of business. So now you think M and S should give their stock away? I don't know if the story you quote is true, but it is hardly patriotic to urge our companies to give stuff away free.

 

And yet you obviously seem to think that selling our country out to a wannabe federal European Superstate where we would ultimately be answerable to a Politburo based in Brussels is somehow "patriotic". And you can't see the irony.!!

It’s the digital age pellinore, and most of the world is in a drive to save the climate/planet, but your beloved EU still insists on reams of paper documentation.

The technology exists to go digital, but here we have just one example of intransigence regarding change on the EU side; an organisation that promotes not only change, but also saving the climate/planet as well, and it just proves to me once again that your beloved EU is a lumbering arthritic dinosaur that's obviously not fit for purpose in today's fast paced modern world.

Edited March 7 by Destination Unknown

[pellinore]

56 minutes ago, Destination Unknown said:

Meanwhile, in your beloved EU, Dutch flower growers have been pleading with the UK government to delay post-Brexit border checks to prevent damage to their industry.

Yes, because border trade checks are damaging. I think we went through this last night, when you couldn't understand why goods and services needed to be checked (about food labelling). The UK opted to be a third country so has no automatic right to trade- we have to jump through hoops to sell stuff to our closest, most important and most significant trade partner. Expensive hoops. But we are trying to avoid that by aligning with EU regulations- and when they change them, we change. If they rule pork sausages need 90% pork not 70% pork, we change to meet the regulation. We have become rule takers, not rule makers. Well, done Brexiters.

[pellinore]

18 minutes ago, Destination Unknown said:

It’s the digital age pellinore, and most of the world is in a drive to save the climate/planet, but your beloved EU still insists on reams of paper documentation.

The technology exists to go digital, but here we have just one example of intransigence regarding change on the EU side; an organisation that promotes not only change, but also saving the climate/planet as well, and it just proves to me once again that your beloved EU is a lumbering arthritic dinosaur that's obviously not fit for purpose in today's fast paced modern world.

Your stupidity is tiresome. Explain how a computer can check what is actually carried on a car, or a 40-tonne vehicle? Or how digitalization can replace actual vets or environmental health check personnel? Paper forms are used by the people carrying out checks. You think every custom official is carrying high tech equipment, X-rays and CT scanning and technology yet to be developed? Your ideas belong with the sunlit uplands full of unicorns.

Edited March 7 by pellinore

[Destination Unknown]

8 hours ago, pellinore said:

Yes, because border trade checks are damaging. I think we went through this last night, when you couldn't understand why goods and services needed to be checked (about food labelling). The UK opted to be a third country so has no automatic right to trade- we have to jump through hoops to sell stuff to our closest, most important and most significant trade partner. Expensive hoops. But we are trying to avoid that by aligning with EU regulations- and when they change them, we change. If they rule pork sausages need 90% pork not 70% pork, we change to meet the regulation. We have become rule takers, not rule makers. Well, done Brexiters.

No pellinore, "we" did not go through this last night at all. "You" avoided the issue, because whether we are in the EU or not, we would still have to align with EU regulations whenever they changed them, or are you trying to tell me that if they ruled pork sausages need 90% pork not 70% pork whilst we were in the EU, we wouldn't have to change to meet the new regulation then? 🤔

No, of course we would, because even when we were in the EU, we still had to comply with EU rules, including the amount of "information" the EU has ruled is required to be put on food packaging, and if those rules were to change over time during the course of our membership (which they quite often did in the past) we would have been required to comply with those new rules, just as we are now "apparently" required to comply with them post-Brexit as well.

Edited March 8 by Destination Unknown