The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Follyfoot]

24 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

He’s your MP because people vote for him.

They’re the ones to blame.

Without all those voters, he’d just be another ‘local character’, half naked in a bush, shouting at traffic and banned from Aldi for that incident in the bakery aisle.

 

You mean a bit like underpants Bill? 

[sidcow]

10 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

This too

Particularly at this time? Are we at war in Europe?

No, but we are retreating from Europe with our tail between our legs painting a disaster as a great victory. 

[AndyC]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

It’s not true there’s extra costs and extra work, four of you have been working on it?

Was it voluntary work in your spare time?

You’ve designed out the extra paperwork....someone else is going to do it.

Will you be avoiding lorry jams at ports by only using trucks and docks?

You are Dominic Raaab, and I claim my £5.

I don’t doubt for a second that for each individual transaction the changes for the vast majority of goods will be minimal, negligible even. But to suggest it’s easy, done and dusted and only a problem due to profiteering haulage companies is a bit of a stretch. But equally, if that is true, I’d love for you to expose this racket in the press. I’d imagine there’s a fair few newspapers and tory MP’s would love to have a chat and a photo op..

 

 

 

No need to be pedantic, we haven’t worked on it solid as a team, it’s really not been much work at all, like any project in business there are costs associated. The media didn’t make a fuss over the US anti dumping tax hitting UK businesses that import from China and sell on to the US, that hit business worse than what Brexit will. 

In the case of Brexit it really is not that bad to get your goods across the border come January.  There’s no racket from the haulage companies, it’s not illegal lol, the declaration is required and they are charging companies for their time to complete them on your behalf - who wouldn’t? 

[AndyC]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

You just said it wasn't true then proved it was true

Not really, you’re taking it literally, of course there’s costs, but the BBC have greatly exaggerated it. 

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, AndyC said:

Not really, you’re taking it literally, of course there’s costs, but the BBC have greatly exaggerated it. 

I didnt realise I should have been reading the news metaphorically.

[AndyC]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

I didnt realise I should have been reading the news metaphorically.

You should read the news with a pinch of salt! 

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, AndyC said:

You should read the news with a pinch of salt! 

You should read what you wrote, when claiming something was wrong, you actually presented annecdotal evidence of it being correct

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, Follyfoot said:

You mean a bit like underpants Bill? 

We had two around here.

Kitty, who was famously generously fouled mouthed to anyone that walked within shouting distance, and Beppo, who was an old school tramp.

Beppo passed in to local parlance, anyone scruffy or wearing the wrong brand of trainer or with kebab down their front at 2:00am or whatever was ‘a Beppo’.

 

[AndyC]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

You should read what you wrote, when claiming something was wrong, you actually presented annecdotal evidence of it being correct

Seriously are you going down this road. I didn’t say there was 0 cost, I said the bbc comment wasn’t true. You see this a lot on this forum, people pick other people’s posts apart word for word desperate to discredit them - bad form from an “admin” 

[chrisp65]

21 minutes ago, AndyC said:

No need to be pedantic, we haven’t worked on it solid as a team, it’s really not been much work at all, like any project in business there are costs associated. The media didn’t make a fuss over the US anti dumping tax hitting UK businesses that import from China and sell on to the US, that hit business worse than what Brexit will. 

In the case of Brexit it really is not that bad to get your goods across the border come January.  There’s no racket from the haulage companies, it’s not illegal lol, the declaration is required and they are charging companies for their time to complete them on your behalf - who wouldn’t? 

But by your own figures, you exporting £1million of stuff to the EU is costing you money.

At the simplest possible level, using your figures, one export costs about an extra £20.

We export nearly £300 Billion to the EU.

I don’t think I’m being pedantic, I think you proved the exact opposite of what you set out to say. It’s cost your relatively small business extra time and money which you are passing on to others. Your share of EU trade is commendable, but a tiny fraction of the total. If your experience is anywhere near typical, the costs are huge.

Incidentally, I don’t think you’ll find many on here taking any ‘news’ from the BBC at face value.

 

[Follyfoot]

11 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

We had two around here.

Kitty, who was famously generously fouled mouthed to anyone that walked within shouting distance, and Beppo, who was an old school tramp.

Beppo passed in to local parlance, anyone scruffy or wearing the wrong brand of trainer or with kebab down their front at 2:00am or whatever was ‘a Beppo’.

 

Kitty sounds like Bertha, she used to live in the woods and walk around town with a shopping trolley full of cats whilst continuously abusing people. Underpants Bill was a far more sinister creature  looking at it with non-childlike eyes

[darrenm]

3 minutes ago, AndyC said:

Seriously are you going down this road. I didn’t say there was 0 cost, I said the bbc comment wasn’t true. You see this a lot on this forum, people pick other people’s posts apart word for word desperate to discredit them - bad form from an “admin” 

To be fair you said "not true at all". That implies you're rejecting the entire concept of extra costs when you're actually saying it's something in the middle?

[AndyC]

1 minute ago, darrenm said:

To be fair you said "not true at all". That implies you're rejecting the entire concept of extra costs when you're actually saying it's something in the middle?

**** me I’ll go back and edit the post then lol. Do you do this in the pub, analyse every sentence to pick it apart - no. 
 

it’s obvious what I meant, the bbc statement is not correct and then I went on to explain my thoughts behind that. Anyone with half a brain could see the work I explained we had done had costs associated to it and that I meant the costs are not scary. 

[darrenm]

Just now, AndyC said:

**** me I’ll go back and edit the post then lol. Do you do this in the pub, analyse every sentence to pick it apart - no. 
 

it’s obvious what I meant, the bbc statement is not correct and then I went on to explain my thoughts behind that. Anyone with half a brain could see the work I explained we had done had costs associated to it and that I meant the costs are not scary. 

It's not obvious though and completely changes your message. Whether on here or in the pub. If someone with domain knowledge like yourself said "not true at all" I'd sit up, take notice and be prepared to be shocked. If they then continued with "we have to do this extra bit and then it costs us this bit extra and then we have to do this" I'd be a bit confused that they were completely contradicting themselves.

If you're trying to inject a bit of nuance, starting with "not true at all" isn't a great way to do it.

The costs, the effort, the time, etc aren't all as bad as has been made out but are still there, though it's not as bad as exporting to the US. Cool, thanks

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, AndyC said:

Do you do this in the pub, analyse every sentence to pick it apart

Yes

6 minutes ago, AndyC said:

it’s obvious what I meant,

Clearly not

6 minutes ago, AndyC said:

I meant the costs are not scary.

The BBC didn't say that, that's you reading invisible ink

This is what the BBC said...

Quote

And those who do business with the EU will not have long to peruse it. Even though a deal has been done, UK traders face a new raft of paperwork and cost. More than 200 million additional customs forms will need completing at a cost of more than £7bn a year.

Which part of it isn't true and point me in the direction of where it says scary

 

[Dodgyknees]

Ive known Bicks for 15 years, he’s very analytical and will always go through things point by point.

[Enda]

11 minutes ago, AndyC said:

 I meant the costs are not scary. 

Hi Andy, interesting post. I think you were hopped on a bit here, but you did add to it yourself!

What do your lot export? Requirements will vary for different sectors.

[chrisp65]

15 minutes ago, AndyC said:

**** me I’ll go back and edit the post then lol. Do you do this in the pub, analyse every sentence to pick it apart - no. 
 

it’s obvious what I meant, the bbc statement is not correct and then I went on to explain my thoughts behind that. Anyone with half a brain could see the work I explained we had done had costs associated to it and that I meant the costs are not scary. 

If we were chatting in the pub and you said something wasn’t true at all, then went on to prove it had some truth in it, I’d probably be too polite to point it out.

That’s the beauty of VT.

Eventually, we all learn to either think about what we write, or put our hands up quickly when we’ve made a basic mistake.

[bickster]

8 minutes ago, avfcDJ said:

Ive known Bicks for 15 years,

longer I think

[Seat68]

The story is that by not doing some sums, the BBC make a figure appear larger or more scary than it actually is. There isnt a story in the BBC reporting that at best firms may see an increase of £35 with new regulations. Instead they said 200 million forms needed which leads to a cost of 7 billion, and not 35 quid per form. 
Also anyone that works with project based timesheets knows that even for the most menial of tasks there is an associated cost. Hell, when I worked at BT there was timesheet code for filling in my timesheet.