Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution
I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'
A creative solution. Step forward May. Oh dear.
Rather predictable response. It is Merkel saying it tonight, not TM
Predictable because it is grounded in bitter truth. We would have more luck getting imagination out of a dead goat than Theresa May.
When May goes walking in Wales, she consults the dead goat population for ideas.
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.
Quick reminder that the UK voted to leave the EU.
We've done this all to ourselves.
Yes we voted to leave the EU.
End of story. We didn't vote to remain tied indefinitely into an EU via a backstop.
So, what's the problem then? We leave, No Deal.
Almost as if someone realises that such a move would be an absolute fucking catastrophe.
Says the same people who said leaving the EU would be a catastrophe.
Just because the people who run every single industry in the UK are quite clear that No Deal would be an unmitigated disaster, we choose to listen to them rather than Philip Thompson, Internet Gammon?
That's just rude.
Except they're not saying that.
Some are saying it could be problematic. Some are saying it is making planning difficult. Some have said they'd re-look at investments.
I can't think of anyone who runs a single industry let alone every single industry in the UK who says it would be quote "an unmitigated disaster". Care to quote that fictional person?
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
Nope. All the UK e UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.
"All the UK would have to do..."
Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.
We haven't spent two years trying to square this circle. We have spent two years trying to deal with fuckwits who use this as an excuse to undermine Brexit. It is not a solution to the issue at hand because people like you and the rest of the Remainers along with your friends in the EU have decided that they do not want this solution. And as one half of the negotiation we cannot just ignore the EU. Hence the unnecessary backstop.
What would be acceptable to the WTO is immaterial as long as those trying to undermine Brexit continue to claim there must be a backstop. This is politics, not trade rules.
Always someone else's fault, eh, Richard?
Brexiter geniuses couldn't even wargame likely scenarios following a leave vote.
We are leaving but dear god you lot are so stupid you really don't deserve to.
Ah. The old subject switch to generalised insults when you have been proved, once again, to be talking bollocks. It took you less time to get there this time than usual. Maybe you are learning something.
Absolute rubbish. You were the one bleating on about the big boy who stole your sweets.
So fine tell me - what is this fantasy agreement or assurance that is all that we'd have to do.
If there is a simple tech solution that works, then the backstop is not a problem. It could easily be implemented by Dec 2020.
If it is unicorn poop, then of course things are different.
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
Nope. All the UK e UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.
"All the UK would have to do..."
Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.
We haven't spent two years trying to square this circle. We have spent two years trying to deal with fuckwits who use this as an excuse to undermine Brexit. It is not a solution to the issue at hand because people like you and the rest of the Remainers along with your friends in the EU have decided that they do not want this solution. And as one half of the negotiation we cannot just ignore the EU. Hence the unnecessary backstop.
What would be acceptable to the WTO is immaterial as long as those trying to undermine Brexit continue to claim there must be a backstop. This is politics, not trade rules.
Always someone else's fault, eh, Richard?
Brexiter geniuses couldn't even wargame likely scenarios following a leave vote.
We are leaving but dear god you lot are so stupid you really don't deserve to.
Ah. The old subject switch to generalised insults when you have been proved, once again, to be talking bollocks. It took you less time to get there this time than usual. Maybe you are learning something.
Absolute rubbish. You were the one bleating on about the big boy who stole your sweets.
So fine tell me - what is this fantasy agreement or assurance that is all that we'd have to do.
If there is a simple tech solution that works, then the backstop is not a problem. It could easily be implemented by Dec 2020.
If it is unicorn poop, then of course things are different.
The problem is whether both parties want the tech solution to work or not.
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
Nope. All the UK e UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.
"All the UK would have to do..."
Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.
We haven't spent two years trying to square this circle. We have spent two years trying to deal with fuckwits who use this as an excuse to undermine Brexit. It is not a solution to the issue at hand because people like you and the rest of the Remainers along with your friends in the EU have decided that they do not want this solution. And as one half of the negotiation we cannot just ignore the EU. Hence the unnecessary backstop.
What would be acceptable to the WTO is immaterial as long as those trying to undermine Brexit continue to claim there must be a backstop. This is politics, not trade rules.
Always someone else's fault, eh, Richard?
Brexiter geniuses couldn't even wargame likely scenarios following a leave vote.
We are leaving but dear god you lot are so stupid you really don't deserve to.
Ah. The old subject switch to generalised insults when you have been proved, once again, to be talking bollocks. It took you less time to get there this time than usual. Maybe you are learning something.
Absolute rubbish. You were the one bleating on about the big boy who stole your sweets.
So fine tell me - what is this fantasy agreement or assurance that is all that we'd have to do.
If there is a simple tech solution that works, then the backstop is not a problem. It could easily be implemented by Dec 2020.
If it is unicorn poop, then of course things are different.
The problem is whether both parties want the tech solution to work or not.
That is the same whatever the timescale, though a bit of time at least makes it more feasible.
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.
Quick reminder that the UK voted to leave the EU.
We've done this all to ourselves.
Yes we voted to leave the EU.
End of story. We didn't vote to remain tied indefinitely into an EU via a backstop.
So, what's the problem then? We leave, No Deal.
Almost as if someone realises that such a move would be an absolute fucking catastrophe.
Says the same people who said leaving the EU would be a catastrophe.
Hear Hear! Twats! We lose free trade with the largest trading block in the world and access to free trade with the 50 other countries the EU have deals with. Who needs them?
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
Nope. All the UK would have to do would b they would be in accord with the WTO rules.
The WTO issue is not that it coul its farmers should get the same treatment.
This is why there is all the discussion about the "technology" solution. I.e., a system for tracking goods coming in from the Republic of Ireland, and ensuring that tariffs are paid and that standards are met.
It is not beyond the wit of man to design and implement such a system. It is not even beyond the wit of man to have it in place in two years time*.
The issue is merely one about whether the EU is being sincere or not in its desire for a technological solution.
It seems to me that if they are, then the backstop is no issue, because it will go soon enough. And if they are not sincere, then we are well within our rights to withdraw from the treaty.
* Of course, government IT projects don't have the best record for being completed on time, or budget. But that's a different issue.
Indeed. This is exactly the point I have been trying to make to Topping but he seems to be incapable of understanding it.
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
If there is a simple tech solution that works, then the backstop is not a problem. It could easily be implemented by Dec 2020.
If it is unicorn poop, then of course things are different.
The problem is whether both parties want the tech solution to work or not.
That is the same whatever the timescale, though a bit of time at least makes it more feasible.
Time's not the issue, pressure is.
If the UK leaves into a backstop-less transition next month then it puts both parties under pressure to find a viable solution.
If the UK leaves into a transition with a backstop at the end of it, it takes the pressure off the EU and any solution must be viewed as better than keeping us in the backstop.
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.
Quick reminder that the UK voted to leave the EU.
We've done this all to ourselves.
Yes we voted to leave the EU.
End of story. We didn't vote to remain tied indefinitely into an EU via a backstop.
So, what's the problem then? We leave, No Deal.
Almost as if someone realises that such a move would be an absolute fucking catastrophe.
Says the same people who said leaving the EU would be a catastrophe.
Hear Hear! Twats! We lose free trade with the largest trading block in the world and access to free trade with the 50 other countries the EU have deals with. Who needs them?
Two World wars and One World cup!!!
They can F-off!!
Harry from Hartlepool
Keep up! Free trade is no longer a good thing. The EU FTA with Japan is why Nissan made the decision.
Haartlepool demands protective tarrifs and fortress England!
Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution
I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'
A creative solution. Step forward May. Oh dear.
Rather predictable response. It is Merkel saying it tonight, not TM
Predictable because it is grounded in bitter truth. We would have more luck getting imagination out of a dead goat than Theresa May.
When May goes walking in Wales, she consults the dead goat population for ideas.
I hope she consults me next time.
She and Philip can have a nice cup of tea and a chat with both my wife and I
We are close to the mountains and only 3 hours by train from Downing Street
The notion that the EU wish to trap the UK against the clear will of the UK into the backstop situation in perpetuity does not ring true to me. In fact I am comfortable to opine that it is not true.
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution
I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'
A creative solution. Step forward May. Oh dear.
Rather predictable response. It is Merkel saying it tonight, not TM
Predictable because it is grounded in bitter truth. We would have more luck getting imagination out of a dead goat than Theresa May.
When May goes walking in Wales, she consults the dead goat population for ideas.
I hope she consults me next time.
She and Philip can have a nice cup of tea and a chat with both my wife and I
We are close to the mountains and only 3 hours by train from Downing Street
Keep an eye on her and don’t let her out into the garden. She will cause havoc running through your herbaceous borders.
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
Does it explicitly prevent changes in arrangements between the UK and Ireland? I only remember clauses about a borde rpoll being necessary if it was thought there was a majority for joining Ireland.
Changes to the GFA need to be approved by a border poll too.
Silly question: what is a 'border poll'. Is it this districts which border on the border, on both sides, and how far back does a 'district' go. Presumably also the poll is carried out on both sides of the border.
It's not a silly question. In fact it's quite a sensible one. The term "border poll" has a special meaning in Northern Ireland. In 1973 there was a NI referendum on whether NI should remain part of the UK or leave it and join the Republic of Ireland. It was referred to as the "border poll". The term sounds anodyne to English ears, who imagine it to be a technical question about customs posts or smuggling booze, ho ho. To people in Northern Ireland the meaning is very different. I have heard the term bandied around a lot recently but I do not know which meaning is being used.
There are two very distinct things that are being (deliberately) confused
1. A “border poll” is a vote on reunification and/or where the border should be (in ‘23 Ulster was split - hence NI - with 6 counties remaining in the UK and 3 joining Eire)
2. The principle of consent is not defined - presumably it could be via a Stormont vote or a referendum. But it covers changes to the GFA/constitutional changes but not whether NI is in the U.K. or RoI
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.
Quick reminder that the UK voted to leave the EU.
We've done this all to ourselves.
Yes we voted to leave the EU.
End of story. We didn't vote to remain tied indefinitely into an EU via a backstop.
So, what's the problem then? We leave, No Deal.
Almost as if someone realises that such a move would be an absolute fucking catastrophe.
Says the same people who said leaving the EU would be a catastrophe.
Hear Hear! Twats! We lose free trade with the largest trading block in the world and access to free trade with the 50 other countries the EU have deals with. Who needs them?
Two World wars and One World cup!!!
They can F-off!!
Harry from Hartlepool
Keep up! Free trade is no longer a good thing. The EU FTA with Japan is why Nissan made the decision.
Haartlepool demands protective tarrifs and fortress England!
Stop taking the mick out of Hartlepool. Only those of us who live there or within 30 miles get to do that!
Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution
I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'
A creative solution. Step forward May. Oh dear.
Rather predictable response. It is Merkel saying it tonight, not TM
Predictable because it is grounded in bitter truth. We would have more luck getting imagination out of a dead goat than Theresa May.
When May goes walking in Wales, she consults the dead goat population for ideas.
I hope she consults me next time.
She and Philip can have a nice cup of tea and a chat with both my wife and I
We are close to the mountains and only 3 hours by train from Downing Street
Keep an eye on her and don’t let her out into the garden. She will cause havoc running through your herbaceous borders.
'Wheat fields' I think and we do not have a garden that big !!!!
Mind you a cuppa on our patio overlooking our garden would be fine
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.
"All the UK would have to do..."
Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.
Then leave. Man up, grow a pair, and walk proudly to independence. Stop blaming others and asking for extensions. Take what you need, go on your way, and stop crying your heart out...
(...and if you can do it by the 29th then that would be great... )
Where have I asked for an extension or not shown a pair?
I'm OK with leaving without a deal on March 29th. I'm fine with it. Its not ideal, but shit happens.
I also think the EU will see sense before then, but if they don't, so be it!
(Sorry, I was looking for an excuse to work in an Oasis song lyric... )
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.
Quick reminder that the UK voted to leave the EU.
We've done this all to ourselves.
Yes we voted to leave the EU.
End of story. We didn't vote to remain tied indefinitely into an EU via a backstop.
But we're not tied in.
If the EU does not act in good faith in implementing the technological solution, then we announce that we will no longer be bound by the treaty.
Right now, you're suggesting we deliberately break our WTO treaty commitments, so that we don't have to break off the WA treaty agreements if the EU doesn't hold up its side of the bargain.
Why is it OK to break WTO treaty commitments (when the WTO has done no wrong), but not OK to break the backstop agreement in the event the EU did do wrong?
I've raised this in the past when people have raised the issue of an open border in Ireland post Brexit, managed by a technological solution and I have asked several times the following questions:
a) Has it been done anywhere?
b) How do you stop fraud? What is to stop me ignoring the electronic declaration and just swanning through. Customs checks aren't there to slow down those obeying the rules. That is an unfortunate side effect. They are there to catch or deter those breaking the rules.
c) Presumably we are going to reintroduce carnets. One quote I saw 'was given a choice between completing a carnet and root canal it is the dentist every time'. I certainly didn't have pleasant experiences in the past with just small items. Imagine a rock band going on the road; nightmare. What would you do in Ireland where you go back and forth. With no checks I'm guessing they will just be ignored. How do you determine the difference between a temporary and proper export then?
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
A single quote from within section "6.3.2 The proposed solution" .... "should"
So my immediate take away from the document is that a technical solution doesn't yet exist and even the requirements aren't detailed yet....
I have yet to read it but imagine the fame of a young Imperial student who announces: here it is. I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet.
The one thing everyone proposing a 'techincal' solution always forgets is the bureaucratic burden that goes along with it. A Brexit motivated by avoiding red tape will involve a frenzy of new red tape.
Time does play its tricks on the memory as we get older . I find it incredible to have to accept the reality that the clip shown relates to events closer to 1938 - the Anschluss and later Chamberlain returning from Munich - than to the present day! Yet it seems a mere few years ago - but in 1978 the late 1930s felt like a different age.
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
Time does play its tricks on the memory as we get older . I find it incredible to have to accept the reality that the clip shown relates to events closer to 1938 - the Anschluss and later Chamberlain returning from Munich - than to the present day! Yet it seems a mere few years ago - but in 1978 the late 1930s felt like a different age.
Though we are still not metric, though the "Anglosphere" in Oz and NZ are...
I've raised this in the past when people have raised the issue of an open border in Ireland post Brexit, managed by a technological solution and I have asked several times the following questions:
a) Has it been done anywhere?
b) How do you stop fraud? What is to stop me ignoring the electronic declaration and just swanning through. Customs checks aren't there to slow down those obeying the rules. That is an unfortunate side effect. They are there to catch or deter those breaking the rules.
c) Presumably we are going to reintroduce carnets. One quote I saw 'was given a choice between completing a carnet and root canal it is the dentist every time'. I certainly didn't have pleasant experiences in the past with just small items. Imagine a rock band going on the road; nightmare. What would you do in Ireland where you go back and forth. With no checks I'm guessing they will just be ignored. How do you determine the difference between a temporary and proper export then?
It works well in may other countries. Switzerland does chose to have spot checks at the border but the actual rules say they can take place at any point within 20 miles of the border on either side.
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
A single quote from within section "6.3.2 The proposed solution" .... "should"
So my immediate take away from the document is that a technical solution doesn't yet exist and even the requirements aren't detailed yet....
I have yet to read it but imagine the fame of a young Imperial student who announces: here it is. I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet.
The author is a Former Director of World Customs Organization and Deputy Director General of Swedish Customs. Hardly a young student.
So the reason it hasn't been embraced by the EU is solely on account of their stubborn desire to maintain us under their jackbooted yoke of oppression?
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
Tell me where and I will be straight into the Morris Traveller with jerry cans of petrol to sort them out.
It works well in may other countries. Switzerland does chose to have spot checks at the border but the actual rules say they can take place at any point within 20 miles of the border on either side.
Went to the Dreilandereck (the point where France, Germany and Switzerland meet) in Basel last year. Looking at the border crossings, the crossings from France into Switzerland and from Germany into Switzerland seemed to work well for vehicles (Switzerland is in Schengen too of course) with some lorries stopped for customs checks and as has been said random checks deeper into Switzerland.
So you have a situation where passports aren't checked (Schengen) but there are customs checks and inspections so lorries are held while cars are generally waved through.
Time does play its tricks on the memory as we get older . I find it incredible to have to accept the reality that the clip shown relates to events closer to 1938 - the Anschluss and later Chamberlain returning from Munich - than to the present day! Yet it seems a mere few years ago - but in 1978 the late 1930s felt like a different age.
Though we are still not metric, though the "Anglosphere" in Oz and NZ are...
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
A single quote from within section "6.3.2 The proposed solution" .... "should"
So my immediate take away from the document is that a technical solution doesn't yet exist and even the requirements aren't detailed yet....
I have yet to read it but imagine the fame of a young Imperial student who announces: here it is. I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet.
The author is a Former Director of World Customs Organization and Deputy Director General of Swedish Customs. Hardly a young student.
So the reason it hasn't been embraced by the EU is solely on account of their stubborn desire to maintain us under their jackbooted yoke of oppression?
I do believe that their aim has been to try and make Brexit as difficult as possible and to frustrate any attempt at a clean break. They are self serving politicians just like ours. They are just a bit (okay a lot) more competent than ours.
The UK, to their shame, would do exactly the same thing when Scotland tries to leave. Except our bunch of politicians would be more inept.
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etc
Certainly official road signage including distance markers (I suppose for the obvious reason that it should be all or nothing to avoid confusion). Pretty sure that it is okay for non-highways stuff though. So I think a local council signpost with distances to local landmarks for tourists would be absolutely fine.
Time does play its tricks on the memory as we get older . I find it incredible to have to accept the reality that the clip shown relates to events closer to 1938 - the Anschluss and later Chamberlain returning from Munich - than to the present day! Yet it seems a mere few years ago - but in 1978 the late 1930s felt like a different age.
Though we are still not metric, though the "Anglosphere" in Oz and NZ are...
The WTO issue is not that it could instruct us to create a border in Northern Ireland.
It is that if we deliberately go out of our way not to collect tariffs, then we will have cases brought against us by (for example) Argentinian beef farmers who would claim that we allowed beef from Ireland in tariff free despite the absence of an FTA, and therefore its farmers should get the same treatment.
This is why there is all the discussion about the "technology" solution. I.e., a system for tracking goods coming in from the Republic of Ireland, and ensuring that tariffs are paid and that standards are met.
It is not beyond the wit of man to design and implement such a system. It is not even beyond the wit of man to have it in place in two years time*.
The issue is merely one about whether the EU is being sincere or not in its desire for a technological solution.
It seems to me that if they are, then the backstop is no issue, because it will go soon enough. And if they are not sincere, then we are well within our rights to withdraw from the treaty.
* Of course, government IT projects don't have the best record for being completed on time, or budget. But that's a different issue.
It is not beyond the wit of man to design and implement systems which could ensure that tariffs are paid, but the customs procedures are only one (very minor) part of the Irish border problem. It is today, and probably for at least another generation, beyond the wit of man to develop and implement a technological solution for the major part of the problem i.e. the sanitary and phytosanitary controls. These are indeed the major part, if measured by impact on the flow of trade or by crucial importance for public life in general and the integrity of the market in particular, and as there is no 'sanitary and phytosanitary super-duper x-ray scan' in development, let alone available, which could conceivably peek into a milk truck crossing the border to count the germs in a litre of milk, there is no technical solution available.
This has been explained numerous times by EU officials as well as a wide range of UK trade experts all across the ideological divide from Anand Menon to Richard North, but Brexiteers keep incessantly droning on about the prospect of technological solutions for the minor part of the problem, which have never been denied - in fact the EU has been the major driver for such solutions globally, to further increase trade efficiency - but continually fail to acknowledge (or perhaps even realise) the major problem.
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasior trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
A single quote from within section "6.3.2 The proposed solution" .... "should"
So my immediate take away from the document is that a technical solution doesn't yet exist and even the requirements aren't detailed yet....
I have yet to read it but imagine the fame of a young Imperial student who announces: here it is. I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet.
The author is a Former Director of World Customs Organization and Deputy Director General of Swedish Customs. Hardly a young student.
So the reason it hasn't been embraced by the EU is solely on account of their stubborn desire to maintain us under their jackbooted yoke of oppression?
I do believe that their aim has been to try and make Brexit as difficult as possible and to frustrate any attempt at a clean break. They are self serving politicians just like ours. They are just a bit (okay a lot) more competent than ours.
The UK, to their shame, would do exactly the same thing when Scotland tries to leave. Except our bunch of politicians would be more inept.
But why hasn't Theresa May done the I have a piece of paper thing yet brandishing those technical specs and making sure every media outlet knows she is keen to take this forward?
Time does play its tricks on the memory as we get older . I find it incredible to have to accept the reality that the clip shown relates to events closer to 1938 - the Anschluss and later Chamberlain returning from Munich - than to the present day! Yet it seems a mere few years ago - but in 1978 the late 1930s felt like a different age.
Though we are still not metric, though the "Anglosphere" in Oz and NZ are...
Canada is metric as well
Only the US, Liberia, Burma and (partially) the UK don't use the metric system.
Time does play its tricks on the memory as we get older . I find it incredible to have to accept the reality that the clip shown relates to events closer to 1938 - the Anschluss and later Chamberlain returning from Munich - than to the present day! Yet it seems a mere few years ago - but in 1978 the late 1930s felt like a different age.
Our lifetimes are naturally more accessible to us than the time even just before our birth, though.
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etc
That was also my understanding. Surprised to hear this factoid about a metric enclave near the Welsh Border! Great PB fact if true.
Time does play its tricks on the memory as we get older . I find it incredible to have to accept the reality that the clip shown relates to events closer to 1938 - the Anschluss and later Chamberlain returning from Munich - than to the present day! Yet it seems a mere few years ago - but in 1978 the late 1930s felt like a different age.
My good lady was born in the late 1930's and is 80 this year bless her
But why hasn't Theresa May done the I have a piece of paper thing yet brandishing those technical specs and making sure every media outlet knows she is keen to take this forward?
See my last comment about ineptness. Mind you my abiding disgust and disdain for May, completely unrelated to Brexit, means I find it difficult to imagine she is capable of anything that does not involve hurting other people.
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etc
It’s just that sort of thing that started to piss a lot of people off about the EEC and then EU.
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etc
It’s just that sort of thing that started to piss a lot of people off about the EEC and then EU.
That’s the UK’s regulation - nothing to do with the EU.
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
Tell me where and I will be straight into the Morris Traveller with jerry cans of petrol to sort them out.
Careful, all that timber means the Traveller can light up in seconds.
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etc
Certainly official road signage including distance markers (I suppose for the obvious reason that it should be all or nothing to avoid confusion). Pretty sure that it is okay for non-highways stuff though. So I think a local council signpost with distances to local landmarks for tourists would be absolutely fine.
Yes, a bit of Googling says I am right. It is illegal to have traffic/road signs giving distance in metric units. However, you CAN use metric when indicating width (of tunnels etc). Brilliantly absurd.
Local authorities apparently need special dispensation to use metres and kms on ANY distance signs, and some have been successfully prosecuted and forced to replace metres with yards.
Hooray for YARDS. Bring back the furlong, rod and pole.
They are much more interesting, diverse, historic and characterful. Slightly more human, good for estimating and rather evocative. Not so good for scientific calculations, and that’s where you use SI, but it’s horses for courses, isn’t it? I think we have the best of both worlds.
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etc
Certainly official road signage including distance markers (I suppose for the obvious reason that it should be all or nothing to avoid confusion). Pretty sure that it is okay for non-highways stuff though. So I think a local council signpost with distances to local landmarks for tourists would be absolutely fine.
Height signs on low bridges etc are often in both systems now, as without a metric version there'd be a lot more non-British trucks hitting them.
Time does play its tricks on the memory as we get older . I find it incredible to have to accept the reality that the clip shown relates to events closer to 1938 - the Anschluss and later Chamberlain returning from Munich - than to the present day! Yet it seems a mere few years ago - but in 1978 the late 1930s felt like a different age.
Our lifetimes are naturally more accessible to us than the time even just before our birth, though.
That indeed is true. I am also having to come to terms with the fact that my present age - 64.5 - was the average male life expectancy here in the UK at the time of the 1953 Coronation!
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etc
It’s just that sort of thing that started to piss a lot of people off about the EEC and then EU.
That’s the UK’s regulation - nothing to do with the EU.
Metrication was also a UK Goverment initiative in some areas, but EEC/EU directives obligated it in many others.
One mild credit to the EU: they finally stopped making it compulsory for the UK in 2009. But, it was too little too late. Had they been more accommodating in other areas of federalisation then the UK probably wouldn’t have left.
It is not beyond the wit of man to design and implement systems which could ensure that tariffs are paid, but the customs procedures are only one (very minor) part of the Irish border problem. It is today, and probably for at least another generation, beyond the wit of man to develop and implement a technological solution for the major part of the problem i.e. the sanitary and phytosanitary controls. These are indeed the major part, if measured by impact on the flow of trade or by crucial importance for public life in general and the integrity of the market in particular, and as there is no 'sanitary and phytosanitary super-duper x-ray scan' in development, let alone available, which could conceivably peek into a milk truck crossing the border to count the germs in a litre of milk, there is no technical solution available.
This has been explained numerous times by EU officials as well as a wide range of UK trade experts all across the ideological divide from Anand Menon to Richard North, but Brexiteers keep incessantly droning on about the prospect of technological solutions for the minor part of the problem, which have never been denied - in fact the EU has been the major driver for such solutions globally, to further increase trade efficiency - but continually fail to acknowledge (or perhaps even realise) the major problem.
This is a frankly idiotic argument.
We start from a position where we are fully aligned as far as phytosanitary and sanitary rules are concerned with no requirement for checking between countries within the EU.
It is blindingly obvious that the answer to this issue would be mutual recognition of standards and certification as long as neither side change their standards. At the point at which either side chooses to tighten or reduce standards then there would be a discussion on this and a decision made on whether either side disagrees enough to want to introduce checks at the border.
Of course I am working from a basic assumption that neither the UK nor EU are going to set out to poison their own population and, by extension, that of the other party... though perhaps there are some suicidal Hard Brexiteers out there who would think it worthwhile just to take down a Frenchman.
Again this is not a practical issue but purely one of political will.
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etc
Certainly official road signage including distance markers (I suppose for the obvious reason that it should be all or nothing to avoid confusion). Pretty sure that it is okay for non-highways stuff though. So I think a local council signpost with distances to local landmarks for tourists would be absolutely fine.
Yes, a bit of Googling says I am right. It is illegal to have traffic/road signs giving distance in metric units. However, you CAN use metric when indicating width (of tunnels etc). Brilliantly absurd.
Local authorities apparently need special dispensation to use metres and kms on ANY distance signs, and some have been successfully prosecuted and forced to replace metres with yards.
Hooray for YARDS. Bring back the furlong, rod and pole.
On the railway distances are measured in miles and chains, apart from HS1 which is in kilometers.
The WTO issue is not that it could instruct us to create a border in Northern Ireland.
It is that if we deliberately go out of our way not to collect tariffs, then we will have cases brought against us by (for example) Argentinian beef farmers who would claim that we allowed beef from Ireland in tariff free despite the absence of an FTA, and therefore its farmers should get the same treatment.
This is why there is all the discussion about the "technology" solution. I.e., a system for tracking goods coming in from the Republic of Ireland, and ensuring that tariffs are paid and that standards are met.
It is not beyond the wit of man to design and implement such a system. It is not even beyond the wit of man to have it in place in two years time*.
The issue is merely one about whether the EU is being sincere or not in its desire for a technological solution.
It seems to me that if they are, then the backstop is no issue, because it will go soon enough. And if they are not sincere, then we are well within our rights to withdraw from the treaty.
* Of course, government IT projects don't have the best record for being completed on time, or budget. But that's a different issue.
It is not beyond the wit of man to design and implement systems which could ensure that tariffs are paid, but the customs procedures are only one (very minor) part of the Irish border problem. It is today, and probably for at least another generation, beyond the wit of man to develop and implement a technological solution for the major part of the problem i.e. the sanitary and phytosanitary controls. These are indeed the major part, if measured by impact on the flow of trade or by crucial importance for public life in general and the integrity of the market in particular, and as there is no 'sanitary and phytosanitary super-duper x-ray scan' in development, let alone available, which could conceivably peek into a milk truck crossing the border to count the germs in a litre of milk, there is no technical solution available.
This has been explained numerous times by EU officials as well as a wide range of UK trade experts all across the ideological divide from Anand Menon to Richard North, but Brexiteers keep incessantly droning on about the prospect of technological solutions for the minor part of the problem, which have never been denied - in fact the EU has been the major driver for such solutions globally, to further increase trade efficiency - but continually fail to acknowledge (or perhaps even realise) the major problem.
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etc
It’s just that sort of thing that started to piss a lot of people off about the EEC and then EU.
If you ask for a "livre" in a French market, or a "pfund" in German one, you'll get a half-kilo of whatever it is you want. I don't know why we couldn't have done the same: one "metric pound" = 500g, one "metric pint" = 0.5l, one "metric mile" = 2 km. Yeah, the distance signs wouldn't have been exactly accurate but do they really have to be?
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etc
Certainly official road signage including distance markers (I suppose for the obvious reason that it should be all or nothing to avoid confusion). Pretty sure that it is okay for non-highways stuff though. So I think a local council signpost with distances to local landmarks for tourists would be absolutely fine.
Yes, a bit of Googling says I am right. It is illegal to have traffic/road signs giving distance in metric units. However, you CAN use metric when indicating width (of tunnels etc). Brilliantly absurd.
Local authorities apparently need special dispensation to use metres and kms on ANY distance signs, and some have been successfully prosecuted and forced to replace metres with yards.
Hooray for YARDS. Bring back the furlong, rod and pole.
They are much more interesting, diverse, historic and characterful. Slightly more human, good for estimating and rather evocative. Not so good for scientific calculations, and that’s where you use SI, but it’s horses for courses, isn’t it? I think we have the best of both worlds.
And, I mildly enjoy confusing my wife with them.
Yes, but wasn't there some evidence that the Space Shuttle explosion was because of US scientists and engineers mixing SI with Imperial and fitting a wrongly-sized widget? So the confusion isn't always charming and benign.
Kilometres do seem very foreign though. I am always startled by the use of them in Ireland and Oz.
I thought Feynman showed that the failure was to do directly with the brittleness of the fuel line seals when subjected to sub zero temperatures. He did the famous showman bit at the enquiry where he put a supposedly flexible seal in a glass of iced water and then snapped it.
The metrication/API error was ploughing into mars with a lander.
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etc
Certainly official road signage including distance markers (I suppose for the obvious reason that it should be all or nothing to avoid confusion). Pretty sure that it is okay for non-highways stuff though. So I think a local council signpost with distances to local landmarks for tourists would be absolutely fine.
Yes, a bit of Googling says I am right. It is illegal to have traffic/road signs giving distance in metric units. However, you CAN use metric when indicating width (of tunnels etc). Brilliantly absurd.
Local authorities apparently need special dispensation to use metres and kms on ANY distance signs, and some have been successfully prosecuted and forced to replace metres with yards.
Hooray for YARDS. Bring back the furlong, rod and pole.
On the railway distances are measured in miles and chains, apart from HS1 which is in kilometers.
HS1 is for all practical purposes a French Ligne á Grande Vitesse.
I’m 26, UK born and raised, and I measure nothing in imperial units apart from alcoholic drinks, speed and penis size (heh). I can hardly comprehend what a stone or a yard is to be honest.
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etc
It’s just that sort of thing that started to piss a lot of people off about the EEC and then EU.
If you ask for a "livre" in a French market, or a "pfund" in German one, you'll get a half-kilo of whatever it is you want. I don't know why we couldn't have done the same: one "metric pound" = 500g, one "metric pint" = 0.5l, one "metric mile" = 2 km. Yeah, the distance signs wouldn't have been exactly accurate but do they really have to be?
In athletics the 1500m gets called the metric mile, and the actual mile rarely gets run.
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etc
It’s just that sort of thing that started to piss a lot of people off about the EEC and then EU.
That’s the UK’s regulation - nothing to do with the EU.
Metrication was also a UK Goverment initiative in some areas, but EEC/EU directives obligated it in many others.
One mild credit to the EU: they finally stopped making it compulsory for the UK in 2009. But, it was too little too late. Had they been more accommodating in other areas of federalisation then the UK probably wouldn’t have left.
Sorry, I was referring to your response to Sean where he pointed out that it’s illegal to use metric on highway signs - that regulation is the UK’s, not the EU’s.
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
Tell me where and I will be straight into the Morris Traveller with jerry cans of petrol to sort them out.
Careful, all that timber means the Traveller can light up in seconds.
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etc
Certainly official road signage including distance markers (I suppose for the obvious reason that it should be all or nothing to avoid confusion). Pretty sure that it is okay for non-highways stuff though. So I think a local council signpost with distances to local landmarks for tourists would be absolutely fine.
Yes, a bit of Googling says I am right. It is illegal to have traffic/road signs giving distance in metric units. However, you CAN use metric when indicating width (of tunnels etc). Brilliantly absurd.
Local authorities apparently need special dispensation to use metres and kms on ANY distance signs, and some have been successfully prosecuted and forced to replace metres with yards.
Hooray for YARDS. Bring back the furlong, rod and pole.
They are much more interesting, diverse, historic and characterful. Slightly more human, good for estimating and rather evocative. Not so good for scientific calculations, and that’s where you use SI, but it’s horses for courses, isn’t it? I think we have the best of both worlds.
And, I mildly enjoy confusing my wife with them.
Yes, but wasn't there some evidence that the Space Shuttle explosion was because of US scientists and engineers mixing SI with Imperial and fitting a wrongly-sized widget? So the confusion isn't always charming and benign.
Kilometres do seem very foreign though. I am always startled by the use of them in Ireland and Oz.
You should never mix any units in a project. That’s retarded. They should all be SI for calculating something like that.
It’s happened elsewhere as well. Planes have crashed because the fuellers got confused and only filled up the number in pounds when it should have been in kilos.
I’ve found kilometres equally weird in Canada. On the plus side, the pint is still going strong as a concept internationally, even if you usually do get cheated of the extra 68ml.
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etc
Certainly official road signage including distance markers (I suppose for the obvious reason that it should be all or nothing to avoid confusion). Pretty sure that it is okay for non-highways stuff though. So I think a local council signpost with distances to local landmarks for tourists would be absolutely fine.
Yes, a bit of Googling says I am right. It is illegal to have traffic/road signs giving distance in metric units. However, you CAN use metric when indicating width (of tunnels etc). Brilliantly absurd.
Local authorities apparently need special dispensation to use metres and kms on ANY distance signs, and some have been successfully prosecuted and forced to replace metres with yards.
Hooray for YARDS. Bring back the furlong, rod and pole.
They are much more interesting, diverse, historic and characterful. Slightly more human, good for estimating and rather evocative. Not so good for scientific calculations, and that’s where you use SI, but it’s horses for courses, isn’t it? I think we have the best of both worlds.
And, I mildly enjoy confusing my wife with them.
Yes, but wasn't there some evidence that the Space Shuttle explosion was because of US scientists and engineers mixing SI with Imperial and fitting a wrongly-sized widget? So the confusion isn't always charming and benign.
Kilometres do seem very foreign though. I am always startled by the use of them in Ireland and Oz.
I’m 26, UK born and raised, and I measure nothing in imperial units apart from alcoholic drinks, speed and penis size (heh). I can hardly comprehend what a stone or a yard is to be honest.
I grew up in the 70s and in some ways failed to properly learn both systems. Higher ambient temperatures make more sense to me in Fahrenheit - "in the 70s" sounds warm - but lower ambient temps make more sense to me in Celsius. Despite living in the US for eight years now, 32F just doesn't mean freezing to me!
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etc
It’s just that sort of thing that started to piss a lot of people off about the EEC and then EU.
If you ask for a "livre" in a French market, or a "pfund" in German one, you'll get a half-kilo of whatever it is you want. I don't know why we couldn't have done the same: one "metric pound" = 500g, one "metric pint" = 0.5l, one "metric mile" = 2 km. Yeah, the distance signs wouldn't have been exactly accurate but do they really have to be?
The mileage signs would have been, erm, miles out. But otherwise I tend to agree. We could and should have just metricated our units, as most of the major ones match up nicely to a metric unit. A foot would have been trickier, but even that could have been standardised to 300mm
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etc
It’s just that sort of thing that started to piss a lot of people off about the EEC and then EU.
That’s the UK’s regulation - nothing to do with the EU.
Metrication was also a UK Goverment initiative in some areas, but EEC/EU directives obligated it in many others.
One mild credit to the EU: they finally stopped making it compulsory for the UK in 2009. But, it was too little too late. Had they been more accommodating in other areas of federalisation then the UK probably wouldn’t have left.
Sorry, I was referring to your response to Sean where he pointed out that it’s illegal to use metric on highway signs - that regulation is the UK’s, not the EU’s.
It is, at present, but under the old European Communities Act 1972 if the EU had agreed a directive for metrification in that area under the auspices of completing the single market then the UK would have been obligated to follow.
I suspect the UK quietly shelved it and convinced the EU it wasn’t a big deal and not to push for it.
At the height of Imperial units the most you could expect to live was three score and ten years. Today, after metrification a lifespan of 100 years is possible.
I’m 26, UK born and raised, and I measure nothing in imperial units apart from alcoholic drinks, speed and penis size (heh). I can hardly comprehend what a stone or a yard is to be honest.
Really? So when someone asks how tall you are, you say 180cm (or whatever). Most people wouldn’t grasp how tall that was.
I’m 26, UK born and raised, and I measure nothing in imperial units apart from alcoholic drinks, speed and penis size (heh). I can hardly comprehend what a stone or a yard is to be honest.
Really? So when someone asks how tall you are, you say 180cm (or whatever). Most people wouldn’t grasp how tall that was.
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etc
It’s just that sort of thing that started to piss a lot of people off about the EEC and then EU.
That’s the UK’s regulation - nothing to do with the EU.
Metrication was also a UK Goverment initiative in some areas, but EEC/EU directives obligated it in many others.
One mild credit to the EU: they finally stopped making it compulsory for the UK in 2009. But, it was too little too late. Had they been more accommodating in other areas of federalisation then the UK probably wouldn’t have left.
Sorry, I was referring to your response to Sean where he pointed out that it’s illegal to use metric on highway signs - that regulation is the UK’s, not the EU’s.
It is, at present, but under the old European Communities Act 1972 if the EU had agreed a directive for metrification in that area under the auspices of completing the single market then the UK would have been obligated to follow.
I suspect the UK quietly shelved it and convinced the EU it wasn’t a big deal and not to push for it.
I'm sure I heard Geoffrey Howe once say they abandoned actively promoting metrication under Thatcher, as they believed it had largely been completed. Although I may have hallucinated.
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
Tell me where and I will be straight into the Morris Traveller with jerry cans of petrol to sort them out.
Careful, all that timber means the Traveller can light up in seconds.
At it's age now, it is woodworm!
My mum had a Minor so it was rust that got it in the end. God, she loved that car.
At the height of Imperial units the most you could expect to live was three score and ten years. Today, after metrification a lifespan of 100 years is possible.
I’m 26, UK born and raised, and I measure nothing in imperial units apart from alcoholic drinks, speed and penis size (heh). I can hardly comprehend what a stone or a yard is to be honest.
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etc
Certainly official road signage including distance markers (I suppose for the obvious reason that it should be all or nothing to avoid confusion). Pretty sure that it is okay for non-highways stuff though. So I think a local council signpost with distances to local landmarks for tourists would be absolutely fine.
Yes, a bit of Googling says I am right. It is illegal to have traffic/road signs giving distance in metric units. However, you CAN use metric when indicating width (of tunnels etc). Brilliantly absurd.
Local authorities apparently need special dispensation to use metres and kms on ANY distance signs, and some have been successfully prosecuted and forced to replace metres with yards.
Hooray for YARDS. Bring back the furlong, rod and pole.
They are much more interesting, diverse, historic and characterful. Slightly more human, good for estimating and rather evocative. Not so good for scientific calculations, and that’s where you use SI, but it’s horses for courses, isn’t it? I think we have the best of both worlds.
And, I mildly enjoy confusing my wife with them.
Snip
You should never mix any units in a project. That’s retarded. They should all be SI for calculating something like that.
It’s happened elsewhere as well. Planes have crashed because the fuellers got confused and only filled up the number in pounds when it should have been in kilos.
I’ve found kilometres equally weird in Canada. On the plus side, the pint is still going strong as a concept internationally, even if you usually do get cheated of the extra 68ml.
I note that the Irish and Australians have standardised a pint at 570ml. A bonus 2ml on ours!
Miles and pints are the only Imperial measure worth keeping and that’s only for sentimental reasons.
The rest are insane anachronisms best consigned to the bin.
They’re certainly not “insane” and nor are they best confined to the bin.
Height measured in feet and inches makes sense, aeroplanes use feet and knots, and we measure our weight in stones and pounds, and babies in pounds and ounces. Acres are still widely used too.
It is, at present, but under the old European Communities Act 1972 if the EU had agreed a directive for metrification in that area under the auspices of completing the single market then the UK would have been obligated to follow.
I suspect the UK quietly shelved it and convinced the EU it wasn’t a big deal and not to push for it.
They should make metrication a requirement when Britain tries to rejoin the EU. Obviously practically better, and requires an unambiguous commitment to stop pandering to nostalgic old people.
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
A single quote from within section "6.3.2 The proposed solution" .... "should"
So my immediate take away from the document is that a technical solution doesn't yet exist and even the requirements aren't detailed yet....
I have yet to read it but imagine the fame of a young Imperial student who announces: here it is. I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet.
I haven’t read this but he was on radio 4 the other day and was pretty sure of himself. Former Swedish customs officer no not just “an Imperial student”
I’m 26, UK born and raised, and I measure nothing in imperial units apart from alcoholic drinks, speed and penis size (heh). I can hardly comprehend what a stone or a yard is to be honest.
Really? So when someone asks how tall you are, you say 180cm (or whatever). Most people wouldn’t grasp how tall that was.
Okay you got me. Height too.
Bet you also measure your trousers and shirts in inches. We really aren’t very metric in a whole bunch of areas.
Miles and pints are the only Imperial measure worth keeping and that’s only for sentimental reasons.
The rest are insane anachronisms best consigned to the bin.
They’re certainly not “insane” and nor are they best confined to the bin.
Height measured in feet and inches makes sense, aeroplanes use feet and knots, and we measure our weight in stones and pounds, and babies in pounds and ounces. Acres are still widely used too.
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etc
It’s just that sort of thing that started to piss a lot of people off about the EEC and then EU.
If you ask for a "livre" in a French market, or a "pfund" in German one, you'll get a half-kilo of whatever it is you want. I don't know why we couldn't have done the same: one "metric pound" = 500g, one "metric pint" = 0.5l, one "metric mile" = 2 km. Yeah, the distance signs wouldn't have been exactly accurate but do they really have to be?
I love the imperfection of it; that’s partly the point. Also, there’s a good argument that base unit 12 (or 60) is better for mental arithmetic than the somewhat more robotic base unit 10.
We’ve never decimalised time.
Most of it is what you’re used to but, if you’re not calculating, why homogenise and lose all that humanness, history, tradition and character?
Miles and pints are the only Imperial measure worth keeping and that’s only for sentimental reasons.
The rest are insane anachronisms best consigned to the bin.
They’re certainly not “insane” and nor are they best confined to the bin.
Height measured in feet and inches makes sense, aeroplanes use feet and knots, and we measure our weight in stones and pounds, and babies in pounds and ounces. Acres are still widely used too.
Chill. It’s all good.
Square feet for property
Inches for clothing sizes and TV screens
Furlongs for horse races
Imperial remains the standard in many areas — that is simply a fact.
I’m 26, UK born and raised, and I measure nothing in imperial units apart from alcoholic drinks, speed and penis size (heh). I can hardly comprehend what a stone or a yard is to be honest.
I grew up in the 70s and in some ways failed to properly learn both systems. Higher ambient temperatures make more sense to me in Fahrenheit - "in the 70s" sounds warm - but lower ambient temps make more sense to me in Celsius. Despite living in the US for eight years now, 32F just doesn't mean freezing to me!
Most of us still speak about our weight in stones and pounds, our height in feet and inches, our fuel economy in miles to the gallon, distance in miles, drinks in pints, engine power in horsepower, Land in acres, thread count in fabric threads per square inch. We still very much think in imperial measurements. Mind you I’m 50 so can’t speak for the younger generation
Comments
When May goes walking in Wales, she consults the dead goat population for ideas.
Some are saying it could be problematic. Some are saying it is making planning difficult. Some have said they'd re-look at investments.
I can't think of anyone who runs a single industry let alone every single industry in the UK who says it would be quote "an unmitigated disaster". Care to quote that fictional person?
If it is unicorn poop, then of course things are different.
Two World wars and One World cup!!!
They can F-off!!
Harry from Hartlepool
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
If the UK leaves into a backstop-less transition next month then it puts both parties under pressure to find a viable solution.
If the UK leaves into a transition with a backstop at the end of it, it takes the pressure off the EU and any solution must be viewed as better than keeping us in the backstop.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Haartlepool demands protective tarrifs and fortress England!
She and Philip can have a nice cup of tea and a chat with both my wife and I
We are close to the mountains and only 3 hours by train from Downing Street
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
1. A “border poll” is a vote on reunification and/or where the border should be (in ‘23 Ulster was split - hence NI - with 6 counties remaining in the UK and 3 joining Eire)
2. The principle of consent is not defined - presumably it could be via a Stormont vote or a referendum. But it covers changes to the GFA/constitutional changes but not whether NI is in the U.K. or RoI
Mind you a cuppa on our patio overlooking our garden would be fine
If the EU does not act in good faith in implementing the technological solution, then we announce that we will no longer be bound by the treaty.
Right now, you're suggesting we deliberately break our WTO treaty commitments, so that we don't have to break off the WA treaty agreements if the EU doesn't hold up its side of the bargain.
Why is it OK to break WTO treaty commitments (when the WTO has done no wrong), but not OK to break the backstop agreement in the event the EU did do wrong?
a) Has it been done anywhere?
b) How do you stop fraud? What is to stop me ignoring the electronic declaration and just swanning through. Customs checks aren't there to slow down those obeying the rules. That is an unfortunate side effect. They are there to catch or deter those breaking the rules.
c) Presumably we are going to reintroduce carnets. One quote I saw 'was given a choice between completing a carnet and root canal it is the dentist every time'. I certainly didn't have pleasant experiences in the past with just small items. Imagine a rock band going on the road; nightmare. What would you do in Ireland where you go back and forth. With no checks I'm guessing they will just be ignored. How do you determine the difference between a temporary and proper export then?
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
So my immediate take away from the document is that a technical solution doesn't yet exist and even the requirements aren't detailed yet....
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
So you have a situation where passports aren't checked (Schengen) but there are customs checks and inspections so lorries are held while cars are generally waved through.
The UK, to their shame, would do exactly the same thing when Scotland tries to leave. Except our bunch of politicians would be more inept.
The WTO issue is not that it could instruct us to create a border in Northern Ireland.
It is that if we deliberately go out of our way not to collect tariffs, then we will have cases brought against us by (for example) Argentinian beef farmers who would claim that we allowed beef from Ireland in tariff free despite the absence of an FTA, and therefore its farmers should get the same treatment.
This is why there is all the discussion about the "technology" solution. I.e., a system for tracking goods coming in from the Republic of Ireland, and ensuring that tariffs are paid and that standards are met.
It is not beyond the wit of man to design and implement such a system. It is not even beyond the wit of man to have it in place in two years time*.
The issue is merely one about whether the EU is being sincere or not in its desire for a technological solution.
It seems to me that if they are, then the backstop is no issue, because it will go soon enough. And if they are not sincere, then we are well within our rights to withdraw from the treaty.
* Of course, government IT projects don't have the best record for being completed on time, or budget. But that's a different issue.
It is not beyond the wit of man to design and implement systems which could ensure that tariffs are paid, but the customs procedures are only one (very minor) part of the Irish border problem.
It is today, and probably for at least another generation, beyond the wit of man to develop and implement a technological solution for the major part of the problem i.e. the sanitary and phytosanitary controls.
These are indeed the major part, if measured by impact on the flow of trade or by crucial importance for public life in general and the integrity of the market in particular, and as there is no 'sanitary and phytosanitary super-duper x-ray scan' in development, let alone available, which could conceivably peek into a milk truck crossing the border to count the germs in a litre of milk, there is no technical solution available.
This has been explained numerous times by EU officials as well as a wide range of UK trade experts all across the ideological divide from Anand Menon to Richard North, but Brexiteers keep incessantly droning on about the prospect of technological solutions for the minor part of the problem, which have never been denied - in fact the EU has been the major driver for such solutions globally, to further increase trade efficiency - but continually fail to acknowledge (or perhaps even realise) the major problem.
http://www.kghborders.com/en/about-border-services/why-kgh.aspx
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/04/norway-students-uk-universities-brexit-warning
And, I mildly enjoy confusing my wife with them.
One mild credit to the EU: they finally stopped making it compulsory for the UK in 2009. But, it was too little too late. Had they been more accommodating in other areas of federalisation then the UK probably wouldn’t have left.
We start from a position where we are fully aligned as far as phytosanitary and sanitary rules are concerned with no requirement for checking between countries within the EU.
It is blindingly obvious that the answer to this issue would be mutual recognition of standards and certification as long as neither side change their standards. At the point at which either side chooses to tighten or reduce standards then there would be a discussion on this and a decision made on whether either side disagrees enough to want to introduce checks at the border.
Of course I am working from a basic assumption that neither the UK nor EU are going to set out to poison their own population and, by extension, that of the other party... though perhaps there are some suicidal Hard Brexiteers out there who would think it worthwhile just to take down a Frenchman.
Again this is not a practical issue but purely one of political will.
That is still 3 out of every 4 do not trust the EU.
Hardly an endorsement for the EU
The metrication/API error was ploughing into mars with a lander.
The rest are insane anachronisms best consigned to the bin.
It’s happened elsewhere as well. Planes have crashed because the fuellers got confused and only filled up the number in pounds when it should have been in kilos.
I’ve found kilometres equally weird in Canada. On the plus side, the pint is still going strong as a concept internationally, even if you usually do get cheated of the extra 68ml.
So no loss of life, but expensive.
"But Nybø said there were still concerns about the future of Erasmus for Norwegians, as Norway is not a member of the EU. ”
Isn't that ... err .. the responsibility of Norway? It is certainly nothing to do with Brexit.
It looks like Guardian scaremongering.
After Brexit, Norway and the UK will be associate members of Erasmus (as are a whole host of other non-EU countries).
I suspect the UK quietly shelved it and convinced the EU it wasn’t a big deal and not to push for it.
Although I may have hallucinated.
Tennis court
Football pitch
Isle of Wight
Wales
Height measured in feet and inches makes sense, aeroplanes use feet and knots, and we measure our weight in stones and pounds, and babies in pounds and ounces. Acres are still widely used too.
Chill. It’s all good.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdf
Catch up with the modern world.
We’ve never decimalised time.
Most of it is what you’re used to but, if you’re not calculating, why homogenise and lose all that humanness, history, tradition and character?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_Board
Inches for clothing sizes and TV screens
Furlongs for horse races
Imperial remains the standard in many areas — that is simply a fact.