RayC

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

No confusion, Mac. @Thaibeachlovers was supporting you, so the question could be posed to either of you. Answer no longer necessary as we covered the topic in a previous exchange.

Same old, same old empty meaningless rhetoric devoid of any factual content. Mods, There really is an urgent need for a 'Sigh' button.

If there was nothing that could be done to remedy the situation, then I would agree. However, there are alternatives such as rejoining the Customs Union and/or Single Market (which admittedly require EU agreement). To recognise that something has a detrimental effect and then continue to do it or - as appeared to be the case since we left - actively try to make things progressively worse is an act of stupidity.

I'm not asking you to keep writing the same thing over and over again; in fact, I'd prefer it if you didn't. What I would like you to produce is something that states something along the lines of (example): "It is estimated that, to date, Covid has cost the UK economy £150bn; the war in Ukraine, £125bn and Brexit £50bn" (Source: The Daily Fact). Until you produce this article I, and others, will continue to call you out about your unsubstantiated opinion that Covid and the war in Ukraine have done more damage to the UK economy than Brexit. Maybe but a direct link would add weight to the proposition. In any event, tangential to the main discussion point. Is (net) mitigation lower now than it was when we left the EU? Has the UK residential housing stock stayed the same post-Brexit? What might appear to be a simple cause-and-effect relationship might not be so straightforward. This, yet again, highlights the need to supply evidence to support your claims. Not as simple as that. See my previous comment. Alright, you can have that one????

It was probably a lying EU cake. My money's on a Stollen or a Madeline.

And you can keep trying to pass off your opinion as fact. It is not and I will continue to remind you of that. Btw:That is an example of a fact There is no exaggeration (imo) The UK is not doing "just fine being out (sic) the EU.." (imo) Who cares about making the country poorer? Economically literate people who don't self harm.