RayC

So what defines the moment when we can turn around and say, "Ok, has Brexit been a success or a failure?" or does that day never come?

If it it's an EU law then it applied in all the 28 member states (as was), and its' aim would not simply has been to avoid discrimination against non-UK companies. Presumably, the objective of the law was to try avoid al types of bias, not just national bias.

Agreed. Almost certainly price would be one of the criteria used in most tender evaluations. This doesn't follow logically or in practice. Factors such as time and quality are important. A bid deemed to offer better potential performance might be selected over a bid with a lower price. It depends on how the various criteria are weighted. I wouldn't say that because on first reading I couldn't understand it. Having understood it, I wouldn't say it because it is completely nonsensical. That seems to be the case in this particular instance Indeed they are

How does that disprove my point that "EU rules had no effect on the Tender Evaluation criteria. They would have been decided by the UK Home Office."?

EU rules had no effect on the Tender Evaluation criteria. They would have been decided by the UK Home Office.

As a rule of thumb, the larger the sample size the more confident one can be in the results. However, a sample size of 1000 might be sufficient to draw conclusions. It depends what was the hypothesis and on factors such as confidence intervals and standard error. Not sure what I'm meant to be 20% out on (Presumably, the number of EU citizens in the UK?)? Whether true or not, it doesn't negate my points.

As there have not been any articles suggesting that the tender evaluation process was flawed and/or that there was any corruption, then the only logical conclusion is that Gemalta were awarded the contract because theirs was the best bid. It's as simple as that.

See @Bluespunk post. Do you not recognise that there is a fundamental difference between "lowest" and "best"? If you want to engage in debate, fine. However, your continual posting of misinformation, followed by your constant changing of the meaning and/context of posts when challenged, and your refusal to admit any error, is extremely irritating. Perhaps, you view that as a success? Please don't try to "explain" anything else to me. __--_-----_--------------- Following pasted in error. Can't seem to delete @Bluespunk

Here we go again! Completely changing the meaning of a post. "Lowest" now becomes "best". Of course, price would almost certainly be a considerable in any tender evaluation. It would be strange if it wasn't.

Once again, that is absolute nonsense. So a company, whose bid did not meet all the requirements in the Tender documentation, would none the less have to be awarded the contract if their bid was the lowest? Please think about what you are writing. How else to interpret this? "It was E.U rules that was the reason for UK (blue) passports being made in Poland"

Anyone with a passing knowledge of statistics (sampling/ survey design) will know that you cannot possibly draw any conclusions from a (non-randomised) sample size of 4 when the total population - # of EU nationals living in the UK - is 3.9million!

That is misleading. EU rules didn't dictate that UK passports had to be produced in Poland. As the UK hadn't left the EU at the time of the tender (2017), it was bound by its' rules on procurement i.e. that any tender had to be open to companies in all the member states. The tender was awarded to a French-Dutch company, whose production facilities are in Poland, by the UK Home Office. Do you deliberately set out to deceive? It's becoming extremely tedious having to correct your stream of factually incorrect anti-EU postings.

????More backtracking. Your point now bears no resemblance to your original post: I doubt that anyone would dispute that "not all sides agree to the current situation" Legal judgement has been made. An appeal has been made to the Supreme Court. Which part of my post (reproduced here) is factually incorrect? "As things currently stand, there is no legal reason why the NI Protocol requires amendment from either an EU or UK standpoint."

An analogy: I knew a bloke smoked 40+/ day, lived to be 90. Who says smoking is bad for you? Must be these bias news sources.

This claim has been rejected by courts in the UK. Unionist politicians have taken the matter to the Supreme Court and a judgement is awaited. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-63799454 In any event, this is completely different to your original comment which still remains untrue: "... that needs sorting out as the UK/Ireland agreement conflicts with the E.U rules and to solve that issue there will need to be some compromise somewhere and either the UK/Ireland agreement needs to be changed or the E.U rules need to be changed as they conflict with one another ..." As things currently stand, there is no legal reason why the NI Protocol requires amendment from either an EU or UK standpoint.

A happy and healthy 2023 to one and all

Not for the first time, you have completely changed the meaning and context of what you originally posted. Your original claim " .... that needs sorting out as the UK/Ireland agreement conflicts with the E.U rules and to solve that issue there will need to be some compromise somewhere and either the UK/Ireland agreement needs to be changed or the E.U rules need to be changed as they conflict with one another ..." That is completely false. The existing Agreement does not conflict with EU regulations and/or the Good Friday agreement. Your revised text is partially correct. Yes, there is a border down the North Sea. Yes, it is unacceptable to NI unionists (both of these points were made by me). Yes, unless a non-member state remains in the Single Market and Customs Union, then a border between the EU state and non-EU state will be needed somewhere. No one has denied this. However, you are incorrect in stating that the GFA and EU regulations contradict each other. They do not as the current Agreement proves. The problem is that by signing the current Agreement, Johnson created a political problem for his - and successive - UK governments. That he was unaware of this problem is beyond belief. Unionist politicians had warned that such an arrangement was unacceptable to them almost as soon as Article 50 was invoked.

Now that you have clarified what you meant, I will reign in my previous criticism somewhat. You are correct that the 'Good Friday' Agreement presupposes and requires an open border. EU rules requiring a closed border remains absolute nonsense. If that were true, the current Protocol would break these rules. Are you suggesting that is the case?

That is absolute nonsense. The current arrangement on the island of Ireland does not conflict with EU rules. The problem - as most people know - is that currently there is effectively a border between the mainland UK and N. Ireland, which the Unionist parties warned all along was unacceptable to them. This has caused major political problems in the province, not least the suspension of the Stormont parliament.

I'm pretty sure that the UK also had summers and winters when it was a member of EU????????

So given that we can't see into the future, let's just lie back and do nothing!? I have never stated that Brexit was more damaging than Covid. On the basis of the figures which I quoted, Brexit has had a more significant economic effect on the UK's economy than the war in Ukraine. Might be an idea to get your facts straight before posting.

The truth is often inconvenient, Nauseus, especially it appears for Brexiters.

Thank you for adding weight to my argument for a 'Sigh' button to be introduced.

Why would you assume that and why was it so difficult to get you to post this information in the first place? Anyway ... The figure for Brexit is estimated by the OBR @ £100bn PER YEAR, based on a reduction in GDP of 4%/year. https://www.ft.com/content/e39d0315-fd5b-47c8-8560-04bb786f2c13 (The Springford report - which 'The Independent' refers to - estimates a contraction of 5.5%/year in GDP. The cost - using Springford's calculations - would be higher than £100bn/year. Those "silly billys" at 'The Independent' got their arithmetic wrong). The Cebr report does indeed estimate the cost of the Ukraine war to the UK @£90bn. This is the TOTAL estimated figure to end 2023. https://cebr.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Cost-of-Russian-invasion-of-Ukraine-for-the-UK-economy.pdf The parliamentary report estimates the cost of Covid measures @ £310bn - £410bn. Given that Covid is, hopefully, behind us these costs should not increase significantly in the future. So what have we? Covid total cost £410bn (and stabilising) Brexit £100bn (and rising) Ukraine £90bn (£45bn to date and hopefully diminishing) No Remainer, to my knowledge, has attempted to downplay the effects of Covid and/or the war in Ukraine. However, you have continually refused to acknowledge the significant detrimental economic effect of Brexit stating that Covid (correct) and Ukraine (incorrect) were more significant. Are you ready to change your mind and admit you were wrong?

I would strongly recommend using the link below and working through it. Note down any questions and then give the NI people a ring. In my experience, it can take a hell of a time to get through, but once you do they do try to help. One thing to bear in mind is that buying 'extra years' is cheaper if you are living AND working abroad than it is if you are UK based. However, there are restrictions e.g. pre-2016 contributions may not count towards an enhanced pension. Bottom line is talk to NI and get authoritive advice from them. Good luck. https://www.gov.uk/plan-for-retirement