Why is the UK struggling more than other countries?

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, puchooay said:

That's the best prediction I've made today. 

 

That is, you would not give direct answers to my questions.

 

Excellent. 

 

Once again, I have not attempted to defend anyone.

Deflect away, but be aware you have been called out for doing so. 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Well, it is currently going through the legal process and the outcome is awaited , so yes, its not actually  illegal, but the legal judgement is being awaited .

   But my point is that not all sides agree to the current situation 

????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."

[RayC]

2 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It was E.U rules that was the reason for UK (blue) passports being made in Poland 

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.

[puchooay]

23 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Deflect away, but be aware you have been called out for doing so. 

Incorrect.

 

You, and only you, made a suggestion as such.

 

This is a forum. One cannot be called out on a forum.

[Bluespunk]

6 minutes ago, puchooay said:

Incorrect.

 

You, and only you, made a suggestion as such.

 

This is a forum. One cannot be called out on a forum.

It’s not a suggestion. It’s what happened. 
 

Once more

 

Scotland and Ireland are not the same and neither are the situations. 
 

Here’s a clue for you: one is about independence and one is about unification with another country. 
 

The conditions for a vote on either are not the same. 

Edited January 1, 2023 by Bluespunk

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

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.

It was E.U rules that stated that the UK must be give the contract  to make the passports to the lowest bidder and that low bid came from Poland and so the UK was forced to give the contract to Poland for the PP's to be made there 

 

2 hours ago, RayC said:

That is misleading. EU rules didn't dictate that UK passports had to be produced in Poland.............................................................

Do you deliberately set out to deceive? It's becoming extremely tedious having to correct your stream of factually incorrect anti-EU postings.

Ray , I did not NOT say that the passports HAD to be made in Poland , Please stop making quotes up and attributing them to me and then saying that I am wrong about something 

Edited January 1, 2023 by Mac Mickmanus

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It was E.U rules that stated that the UK must be give the contract  to make the passports to the lowest bidder and that low bid came from Poland and so the UK was forced to give the contract to Poland for the PP's to be made there 

 

Ray , I did not NOT say that the passports HAD to be made in Poland , Please stop making quotes up and attributing them to me and then saying that I am wrong about something 

His post was quoting you. What part of this quote did RayC make up?

 

It was E.U rules that was the reason for UK (blue) passports being made in Poland 

And your reply clearly was misleading. Not false. Just very misleading. It's EU rules that require the lowest bidder to get the job. In this case it happened to be Poland. That's a lot different from saying it was EU rules that was the reason for UK passports being made in Poland.

[josephbloggs]

12 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Ray , I did not NOT say that the passports HAD to be made in Poland , Please stop making quotes up and attributing them to me and then saying that I am wrong about something 

Erm....

"It was E.U rules that was the reason for UK (blue) passports being made in Poland" - Mac Mickmanus

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, josephbloggs said:

Erm....

"It was E.U rules that was the reason for UK (blue) passports being made in Poland" - Mac Mickmanus

Ray claimed : "EU rules didn't dictate that UK passports had to be produced in Poland."

 

 

Can you see the word HAD in my post ?

It isn't there , Ray added the word and that changed the meaning of what I said

[Mac Mickmanus]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

His post was quoting you. What part of this quote did RayC make up?

 

 

The bit you edited out, see post above for explanation 

[placeholder]

21 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The bit you edited out, see post above for explanation 

It's clear that you don't understand what "misquote" means:

Where did RayC give an indication that he was repeating exactly what you wrote?

He quoted you once exacly and then explained why what you wrote is misleading.

[bannork]

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It's clear that you don't understand what "misquote" means:

Where did RayC give an indication that he was repeating exactly what you wrote?

He quoted you once exacly and then explained why what you wrote is misleading.

What I wrote wasn't misleading though , it was the E.U rules which forced the UK to get its passports printed in Poland , E.U rules required the UK to give the contract to the lowest/best bidder  and the lowest bid came from a company who printed them in Poland .

   The UK Gov would probably have chosen a UK company to print the PP's if it wasn't for the E.U rules .

   

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

What I wrote wasn't misleading though , it was the E.U rules which forced the UK to get its passports printed in Poland , E.U rules required the UK to give the contract to the lowest/best bidder  and the lowest bid came from a company who printed them in Poland .

   The UK Gov would probably have chosen a UK company to print the PP's if it wasn't for the E.U rules .

   

Do contracts under eu rules have to be awarded to the lowest bidder?

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Do contracts under eu rules have to be awarded to the lowest bidder?

The UK Government had to award the contract to the best bidder and the price would contribute to who the best bidder was .

   Contracts proposals  were submitted anonymously without the company being named and the UK Gov chose the lowest bidder who printed the passports in Poland .

   UK printers would have had higher costs and would have submitted a higher price in the contract .

   The UK Government wasnt allowed to choose a British company to print the passports , it had to choose the lowest/best bidder

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It was E.U rules that stated that the UK must be give the contract  to make the passports to the lowest bidder and that low bid came from Poland and so the UK was forced to give the contract to Poland for the PP's to be made there 

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.

 

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

 

Ray , I did not NOT say that the passports HAD to be made in Poland , Please stop making quotes up and attributing them to me and then saying that I am wrong about something 

How else to interpret this?

 

"It was E.U rules that was the reason for UK (blue) passports being made in Poland"

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The UK Government had to award the contract to the best bidder and the price would contribute to who the best bidder was .

   Contracts proposals  were submitted anonymously without the company being named and the UK Gov chose the lowest bidder who printed the passports in Poland .

   UK printers would have had higher costs and would have submitted a higher price in the contract .

   The UK Government wasnt allowed to choose a British company to print the passports , it had to choose the lowest/best bidder

So it's not necessarily the lowest bidder as you claimed earlier but the best bid. And anonymous so seems like a fair process.

[RayC]

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The UK Government had to award the contract to the best bidder and the price would contribute to who the best bidder was .

   Contracts proposals  were submitted anonymously without the company being named and the UK Gov chose the lowest bidder who printed the passports in Poland .

   UK printers would have had higher costs and would have submitted a higher price in the contract .

   The UK Government wasnt allowed to choose a British company to print the passports , it had to choose the lowest/best bidder

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. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

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.

 

 

No Ray , a Company who didn't meet all the requirements wouldn't be given the contract , once again you are making things up and attributing them to me and saying that I am wrong .

   They would have to meet certain requirements in order to submit their bid , do stop making things up  

[Mac Mickmanus]

17 minutes ago, RayC said:

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. 

Lowest and best have a similar meaning and using either word doesn't change the context of what I mean , the lowest bid would be the best bid .

   Doesn't change the point that the UK couldn't choose a UK company to print the passports and it had to choose the best/lowest bidder and that's why the passports are printed in Poland 

[Mac Mickmanus]

25 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So it's not necessarily the lowest bidder as you claimed earlier but the best bid. And anonymous so seems like a fair process.

Each company would submit their application detailing what they can provide and the cost and the UK Gov would make a decision  based on what is offered  and price would be a major factor in that .

   Point being that the UK Gov couldn't give the contract to a UK company on the basis the PP's would get printed in the UK , bids were submitted anonymously and the name of the company or where the PP's would get made wasn't on the info submitted in the applications 

[Mac Mickmanus]

35 minutes ago, RayC said:

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"

 

Do I really have to explain ?

There isn't a rule that says "UK passports HAVE to be made in Poland" which is what you claimed I said . 

   There IS an E.U rule which states that the lowest/best bid needs to be given the contract to print the passports .

   So its THAT E.U rule which is the reason why UK PP's are printed in Poland .

   If there wasn't an E.U rule stating that the lowest/best bid needs to be given the contract, then the UK Gov could have given the contract to a UK company and got the passports printed in the UK

[Bluespunk]

46 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Do I really have to explain ?

There isn't a rule that says "UK passports HAVE to be made in Poland" which is what you claimed I said . 

   There IS an E.U rule which states that the lowest/best bid needs to be given the contract to print the passports .

   So its THAT E.U rule which is the reason why UK PP's are printed in Poland .

   If there wasn't an E.U rule stating that the lowest/best bid needs to be given the contract, then the UK Gov could have given the contract to a UK company and got the passports printed in the UK

The U.K. chose to use the eu open tender process, if they had wished to not do this they could have. 
 

This was a choice the government made and was not obligated to do so under eu rules. 
 

The French for example chose not to follow this process, but instead awarded the contract to a French company as allowed under eu rules. 
 

“French passports are made by Imprimerie Nationale, the state-run French printing organisation, with the French government having made the decision not to put the job out to tender, as allowed under EU rules”

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/22/contract-to-print-uk-passports-abroad-will-save-120m

 

 

Stop spreading misinformation about why British passports are produced in Poland.

 

It was the uks independent decision that led to this situation, not eu rules. 

 

Edited January 1, 2023 by Bluespunk

[nauseus]

All ridiculous anyway. Any sovereign state should produce its own travel documents.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Do I really have to explain ?

There isn't a rule that says "UK passports HAVE to be made in Poland" which is what you claimed I said . 

   There IS an E.U rule which states that the lowest/best bid needs to be given the contract to print the passports .

   So its THAT E.U rule which is the reason why UK PP's are printed in Poland .

   If there wasn't an E.U rule stating that the lowest/best bid needs to be given the contract, then the UK Gov could have given the contract to a UK company and got the passports printed in the UK

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

Edited January 1, 2023 by RayC

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

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 meaning and/context when challenged and your refusal to admit any error is extremely irritating.

 

Perhaps, you view that as a success?

 

 

 @Bluespunk

Check the link date .

The new E.U rules about Procurement policy came into effect on January 1 st 2018 which were the rules the UK followed and that's why the UK PPs were printed in Poland , any Country getting passports made before that date , the French for example, wouldn't have to abide by those rules and the French gave their contract out for PP printing  BEFORE the new rules came into effect 

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/procurement-policy-note-0417-new-threshold-levels-2018

[Bluespunk]

12 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Check the link date .

The new E.U rules about Procurement policy came into effect on January 1 st 2018 which were the rules the UK followed and that's why the UK PPs were printed in Poland , any Country getting passports made before that date , the French for example, wouldn't have to abide by those rules and the French gave their contract out for PP printing  BEFORE the new rules came into effect 

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/procurement-policy-note-0417-new-threshold-levels-2018

Yeah, except the U.K. put its passports up for tender in 2017

 

https://www.designweek.co.uk/issues/3-9-april-2017/uk-passport-redesign-490-million-contract-following-brexit/

[RayC]

4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Check the link date .

The new E.U rules about Procurement policy came into effect on January 1 st 2018 which were the rules the UK followed and that's why the UK PPs were printed in Poland , any Country getting passports made before that date , the French for example, wouldn't have to abide by those rules and the French gave their contract out for PP printing  BEFORE the new rules came into effect 

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/procurement-policy-note-0417-new-threshold-levels-2018

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.

[Mac Mickmanus]

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

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.

Yes, but IMO the UK should have our passports printed in the UK and hopefully that will happen in the future now that we don't have to follow E.U rules 

[RayC]

13 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, but IMO the UK should have our passports printed in the UK and hopefully that will happen in the future now that we don't have to follow E.U rules 

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