UK asks EU for Brexit grace period extension to 2023, BBC reports

[transam]

1 hour ago, oldhippy said:

I sincerely  hope that giving Astrazenica to the 65+  will not turn out to be become a waste of lives and vaccin.

I prefer the "safety" first attitude of the EU, over the Tory "we are number one for vaccinations" attitude.

I expected you would....????

[Loiner]

15 hours ago, candide said:

As you know, the U.K. is not more pragmatic.

 

Is the extended grace period for vital industries including automotive not being pragmatic?

[Loiner]

10 hours ago, tebee said:

 

UK is being "pragmatic" because it's not ready yet - it's only had 4 years to get ready !

 

Its only had 4 weeks. The Remainer businesses were hanging on to their hopes that the U.K. would collapse in the negotiations and agree to all EU demands and their cost status quo would continue. 

[bkkcanuck8]

2 minutes ago, Loiner said:

 

Is the extended grace period for vital industries including automotive not being pragmatic?

 

Extending the grace period is pragmatic if the UK is willing to offer something in return and get a reprieve as part of it.  If it is all the UK going, we have exited but we don't want to be held account for our actions then it is no more than trying to get the benefits of the EU while not being held to the same standards as those within the EU.  (i.e. short term cherry picking, but cherry picking all the same).  The UK had the opportunity to extend the transition period as they were not ready:

• the UK government stated they needed to hire 50,000 customs agents to help with all the additional paperwork but really only 'started' doing that half way through this years so it is unlikely you could hire the required staff and have them all trained in time....
• the UK government is not going to have their systems in place til 2024
• the UK did not have parallel 'go live' processes in place to work out the kinks and be assured they would have everything in place.

A failure to plan on the UK side does not make it an emergency on the EU side... As a sovereign UK, the UK would have to come to the negotiating table and offer something in return for what they want... it would be irresponsible for the EU to be worried about the UK's welfare over their own welfare.  The EU started getting ready for a hard exit years ago. 

[bkkcanuck8]

3 minutes ago, Loiner said:

 

Its only had 4 weeks. The Remainer businesses were hanging on to their hopes that the U.K. would collapse in the negotiations and agree to all EU demands and their cost status quo would continue. 

No, the UK had said that a hard exit was always a possibility.   They should have been preparing for that possibility from very early on as insurance... yet they did NOTHING.  The EU has been working on the possibility of a hard exit for many years now.

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

 

Extending the grace period is pragmatic if the UK is willing to offer something in return and get a reprieve as part of it.  If it is all the UK going, we have exited but we don't want to be held account for our actions then it is no more than trying to get the benefits of the EU while not being held to the same standards as those within the EU.  (i.e. short term cherry picking, but cherry picking all the same).  The UK had the opportunity to extend the transition period as they were not ready:

• the UK government stated they needed to hire 50,000 customs agents to help with all the additional paperwork but really only 'started' doing that half way through this years so it is unlikely you could hire the required staff and have them all trained in time....
• the UK government is not going to have their systems in place til 2024
• the UK did not have parallel 'go live' processes in place to work out the kinks and be assured they would have everything in place.

A failure to plan on the UK side does not make it an emergency on the EU side... As a sovereign UK, the UK would have to come to the negotiating table and offer something in return for what they want... it would be irresponsible for the EU to be worried about the UK's welfare over their own welfare.  The EU started getting ready for a hard exit years ago. 

I think you will find the government has done a sterling job in providing ALL the necessary information and support industry required......industry only has itself to blame and anyway these are only teething problems...so what's the fuss?.......(joking)

[candide]

13 minutes ago, Loiner said:

 

Is the extended grace period for vital industries including automotive not being pragmatic?

Well, the U.K. doesn't have other alternatives. Ok, It's more pragmatic than halting trade until it is ready to apply rules.

[Loiner]

8 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

 

Extending the grace period is pragmatic if the UK is willing to offer something in return and get a reprieve as part of it.

The UK had the opportunity to extend the transition period 

• the UK government is not going to have their systems in place til 2024
• the UK did not have parallel 'go live' processes in place to work out the kinks

A failure to plan on the UK side does not make it an emergency

If it is a grace period there is no need for the U.K. to offer anything in return. That’s why it would be called ‘grace’ - given freely in good grace. 

Any extension to the transition period was rightly kicked out by Boris. Any further time in the grip of the EU would not have given them any incentive to finalise a deal. 

Many of the U.K. systems are already in place and we’re rolled out to go live over the past two years. They are not part of the EU system, or how the EU jobsworths operate at the border. 

The UK has been planning and implementing this for some years now. It has been a strategy with various programmes that you and the Remainer press are unaware of, preventing the emergency you wished for. 

[Kwasaki]

2 hours ago, oldhippy said:

I sincerely  hope that giving Astrazenica to the 65+  will not turn out to be become a waste of lives and vaccin.

I prefer the "safety" first attitude of the EU, over the Tory "we are number one for vaccinations" attitude.

Well don't moan then about the slow progress of vaccination like the French people and people in other EU countries are.

The Russians were first making spunic vaccine and because of EU criticism of Russia they shouldn't let the EU have it.

[transam]

24 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

I think you will find the government has done a sterling job in providing ALL the necessary information and support industry required......industry only has itself to blame and anyway these are only teething problems...so what's the fuss?.......

How true.......

[Loiner]

22 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

No, the UK had said that a hard exit was always a possibility.   They should have been preparing for that possibility from very early on as insurance... yet they did NOTHING.  The EU has been working on the possibility of a hard exit for many years now.

You obviously know nothing of what the U.K. has been preparing for over the past few years. A No Deal exit was also included. The government has been doing PLENTY in its preparations. Has nothing been done there may well have been an emergency in trade with the EU, in the event it has actually been going very well, with only a few exceptions which are pounced upon by Remainers, but are not representative of Brexit’s overall success. 

[bkkcanuck8]

1 minute ago, Loiner said:

If it is a grace period there is no need for the U.K. to offer anything in return. That’s why it would be called ‘grace’ - given freely in good grace. 

Any extension to the transition period was rightly kicked out by Boris. Any further time in the grip of the EU would not have given them any incentive to finalise a deal. 

Many of the U.K. systems are already in place and we’re rolled out to go live over the past two years. They are not part of the EU system, or how the EU jobsworths operate at the border. 

The UK has been planning and implementing this for some years now. It has been a strategy with various programmes that you and the Remainer press are unaware of, preventing the emergency you wished for. 

Then I would say it would be irresponsible to reward incompetence and the failure to plan on the UK side.  The EU is responsible to make sure they get the best deal they can for their own citizens, not giving out benefits to others outside the EU (especially 1st world nations).  The UK is completely sovereign to the EU... they should be responsible for their own failures to plan starting the day of the referendum win.  The EU spent money preparing for years because they felt they could not wait until when the UK would even make it be known what deal they were willing to offer at the negotiating table, the UK did not spend money in advance to prepare... and failure in several areas is a result of it.

[bkkcanuck8]

1 minute ago, Loiner said:

You obviously know nothing of what the U.K. has been preparing for over the past few years. A No Deal exit was also included. The government has been doing PLENTY in its preparations. Has nothing been done there may well have been an emergency in trade with the EU, in the event it has actually been going very well, with only a few exceptions which are pounced upon by Remainers, but are not representative of Brexit’s overall success. 

Well, if this is a result of the planning, then the UK is just plain incompetent.

[Loiner]

28 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

I think you will find the government has done a sterling job in providing ALL the necessary information and support industry required......industry only has itself to blame and anyway these are only teething problems...so what's the fuss?.......(joking)

The government is not responsible to fill in businesses forms for them. If a business wants to export to the EU it had better get its paperwork in order.

[bkkcanuck8]

Just now, Loiner said:

The government is not responsible to fill in businesses forms for them. If a business wants to export to the EU it had better get its paperwork in order.

The government is changing the way the economy works, they are responsible for ensuring a smooth transition - including putting systems in place on their side and to educate and ensure that at the time of cut-off go live that they have been able to remove as much risk and to prepare people for that day.   If the UK does not want to spend the money on that, then they end up spending the money on lost taxes do to the system not working smoothly on that cut-off date.

 

Part of what I do is planning deployment of new systems to in financial institutions (banks) and I think we do more to prepare for the size of the institution... in advance of the cutoff go live date (after the parallel go live date).    Part of that is making sure that everybody is fully experienced and that all the kinks have been worked out.   It is sheer stupidity and incompetence not to do the same for the UK since the risk and cost of failure is considerable.  We fail, we lose a customer and get sued... the UK government fails and the economy is damaged due to losing customers who have to source their products from new suppliers and never come back.

[Loiner]

5 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Then I would say it would be irresponsible to reward incompetence and the failure to plan on the UK side. 

 

the UK did not spend money in advance to prepare... 

Not true. The U.K. has been planning and has spent a small fortune in preparing its systems for Brexit. 

Irresponsible to reward for incompetence? Who would that be - our long-standing ‘friends’ and trading partners over the channel?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Loiner said:

The government is not responsible to fill in businesses forms for them. If a business wants to export to the EU it had better get its paperwork in order.

But if a Government, and indeed governing political party, stands on a platform of being pro business, and is of course directly involved in the negotiations of the trade deal it ought to be able to provide clear and concise guidance to businesses in what paperwork to expect.

 

Especially so since, during the UK’s membership of the EU the UK took part in writing the regulations that stipulate the paperwork.

 

Of course if that same Government were in denial on the matter of Brexit increasing customs documentation requirements it might not have given the matter the attention we now see, and many predicted, it deserves.

[Phulublub]

17 minutes ago, Loiner said:

If it is a grace period there is no need for the U.K. to offer anything in return. That’s why it would be called ‘grace’ - given freely in good grace. 

Any extension to the transition period was rightly kicked out by Boris. Any further time in the grip of the EU would not have given them any incentive to finalise a deal. 

Many of the U.K. systems are already in place and we’re rolled out to go live over the past two years. They are not part of the EU system, or how the EU jobsworths operate at the border. 

The UK has been planning and implementing this for some years now. It has been a strategy with various programmes that you and the Remainer press are unaware of, preventing the emergency you wished for. 

I must have misread the opening post - I thought it was the UK that wanted the extra time?

 

PH

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Loiner said:

Not true. The U.K. has been planning and has spent a small fortune in preparing its systems for Brexit. 

Irresponsible to reward for incompetence? Who would that be - our long-standing ‘friends’ and trading partners over the channel?

They’ve given an awful lot of tax payer’s money to their chums, but there is little if any evidence it was for the purposes of easing the Brexit transition for the nation’s (non chum) businesses.

[Loiner]

11 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Well, if this is a result of the planning, then the UK is just plain incompetent.

Maybe it just to big a job for you to comprehend. 

[Surelynot]

8 minutes ago, Loiner said:

The government is not responsible to fill in businesses forms for them. If a business wants to export to the EU it had better get its paperwork in order.

Serious question....is the same paperwork that every "third" country has been using for decades or is this all new paper  recently invented by the EU just for the UK?

[transam]

1 minute ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

The government is changing the way the economy works, they are responsible for ensuring a smooth transition - including putting systems in place on their side and to educate and ensure that at the time of cut-off go live that they have been able to remove as much risk and to prepare people for that day.   If the UK does not want to spend the money on that, then they end up spending the money on lost taxes do to the system not working smoothly on that cut-off date.

 

Part of what I do is planning deployment of new systems to in financial institutions (banks) and I think we do more to prepare for the size of the institution... in advance of the cutoff go live date (after the parallel go live date).    Part of that is making sure that everybody is fully experienced and that all the kinks have been worked out.   It is sheer stupidity and incompetence not to do the same for the UK since the risk and cost of failure is considerable.  We fail, we lose a customer and get sued... the UK government fails and the economy is damaged due to losing customers who have to source their products from new suppliers and never come back.

That reads like you know everything that the UK has not done, when in fact they may have and there are hiccups.

Now if you have any crucial evidence that you know of, then post it here, oh, not stuff from anti-Brit rags eh...

 

We are quite used to reading remainer digging over the last 5 years, so please back up your post with something..

[bkkcanuck8]

Just now, Loiner said:

Maybe it just to big a job for you to comprehend. 

If you make a single job too big to comprehend then you are mismanaging the situation.... you break that job into smaller more manageable jobs and implement it over  longer period of time.  The offer was on the table to extend the transition period - which would have allowed it. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, transam said:

That reads like you know everything that the UK has not done, when in fact they may have and there are hiccups.

Now if you have any crucial evidence that you know of, then post it here, oh, not stuff from anti-Brit rags eh...

 

We are quite used to reading remainer digging over the last 5 years, so please back up your post with something..

Oh no, your ‘Anti Brit’ thing again.

[Loiner]

2 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

I must have misread the opening post - I thought it was the UK that wanted the extra time?

 

PH

The EU wanted to extend the Transition Period. Didn’t happen and we were out. 

 

The EU was agreeable to extending a Grace Period on some products, but becomes protectionist on others. 

[transam]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

They’ve given an awful lot of tax payer’s money to their chums, but there is little if any evidence it was for the purposes of easing the Brexit transition for the nation’s (non chum) businesses.

More lefty "anti" BS.....

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Loiner said:

The EU wanted to extend the Transition Period. Didn’t happen and we were out. 

 

The EU was agreeable to extending a Grace Period on some products, but becomes protectionist on others. 

But it’s not the EU begging for a grace period.

 

Doh!

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, transam said:

More lefty "anti" BS.....

So can refute that Johnson’s Government has been handing lucrative contracts to China of Government ministers and getting little, if anything in return?

 

Pay your taxes, doff your hat/tug your forelocks and get behind Johnson’s Government lining the pockets of his chums.

[transam]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh no, your ‘Anti Brit’ thing again.

Seems my anti-Brit thing hurts, just like my history lessons.......????

[Loiner]

4 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Serious question....is the same paperwork that every "third" country has been using for decades or is this all new paper  recently invented by the EU just for the UK?

According to posts in this thread, the EU appears to have prepared new paperwork for post-Brexit trade. You would need advice from a third country if their paperwork has changed. 

The UK has introduced new paperwork, which has been prepared and rolled out over the past few years.