# Brexit chaos at the ports: why is this a problem now, but was not a problem before the EU? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 5, 2019, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260 "2019-01-05T19:40:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260/161 "2019-01-09T13:38:00Z")
> [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > But it seemed at the time the points made by the remain campaign were weaker still. They more or less expected to win by default, right up to when they didn’t. That is very true. The Remain campaign was woeful. It didn’t address the desires of potential Leave voters, nor did it do much to point out the downsides. I think, as you say, they felt they didn’t need to do much campaigning because they were bound to win. The bookmakers and the opinion polls certainly gave that impression (although in retrospect the warning signs were there in the polls). The problem is that the Remain campaign was too insular. It failed to look outside the London and Home Counties bubble where the idea of voting to leave was never going to happen. Having said that, the referendum result did show me how you can live in an echo chamber without noticing. Only two people in my social circle voted to leave, as far as I am aware, and yet my (well off, Home Counties commuter belt) local constituency, which I would have expected to be vastly in favour of staying in the EU, was only just in favour, at 52.4% Remain. ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260/162 "2019-01-09T13:41:29Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Yeah, you all are being pretty obtuse, wanting to be sovereign and have your own currency and all. > > That attitude right there is what caused Brexit. The UK people are independent and proud and do not need to be told what to do from Brussels. You’re missing the point. The EU bent over backwards to pander to the UK. It agreed to an indefinite opt-out on the euro and from Schengen, to name but two. So yes, we already had our own currency and our sovereignty, AND all the benefits of being in a huge trading block. Now we have thrown away the benefits, for no additional gain, and if we want the trading benefits back, you can bet that we will have to give up the preferential treatment that we formerly had as a respected member of the original EU. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260/163 "2019-01-09T13:42:02Z")
> [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > I’m not going to continue to debate with you, because a) while you have demonstrated a great deal of knowledge on the general issues, on this specific issue you don’t know what you are talking about, b) I don’t wish to go into more detail about the subject as I would prefer the nature and place of my employment to remain relatively anonymous, c) it appears you refuse to even consider the possibility you might be wrong about anything, If this is such a onerous regulation then could you provide a cite rebutting the article there? As someone not in the EU, I have never heard of the issue, but if the article is correct, then it does not seem to be much a big deal. There should be some published source which could quickly refute that article if the article is fake news. Even if a single article can’t be found, a quick summary would be helpful and I cannot imagine a circumstance where you providing general information could jeopardize your anonymity or provide any kind of clue to the nature or place of employment. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Dead\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Cat)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260/164 "2019-01-09T14:03:40Z")
I didn’t read the article, as my argument is not to dispute or rebut it - it is that the points Ramira made are not relevant to the situation I was describing. To be honest, that particular regulation is not especially onerous, it is the principle of it that annoys me. As I said, many people would view that as an acceptable, minor irritation and they are free to do that. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260/165 "2019-01-09T14:07:02Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Yeah, you all are being pretty obtuse, wanting to be sovereign and have your own currency and all. > > That attitude right there is what caused Brexit. The UK people are independent and proud and do not need to be told what to do from Brussels. We are already sovereign, and we have our own currency within the EU. That wouldn’t change within the EU without the explicit consent of the British Parliament, and likely, due to recent constitutional changes in the UK, with a referendum. With Brexit, we’re less sovereign, weaker, poorer, and we’ll likely rejoin after a spell to undo the damage, and re-enter the irresistible superiority of the Single Market. Out of necessity, we’ll have to negotiate our re-entry, and the EU won’t be in a mood to humour the British, given the special treatment they gave us over forty years was spat back by an ungrateful country. Plus, being poorer, weaker, and more humble, we’ll have less to bargain with in return. Jesus. You can’t eat ‘pride’, Ultra. Nor are we told what to do by Brussels. That makes us much sense as claiming that California is told what to do by Washington DC, ignoring the huge number of Representatives it sends, its two senators, and its major economic clout within the US. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260/166 "2019-01-09T14:33:40Z")
> [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > I didn’t read the article, as my argument is not to dispute or rebut it - it is that the points Ramira made are not relevant to the situation I was describing. To be honest, that particular regulation is not especially onerous, it is the principle of it that annoys me. As I said, many people would view that as an acceptable, minor irritation and they are free to do that. Just so we’re clear - the hit that Britain is going to take from Brexit will likely be between 4% (a really bad year) and 10% (about as bad as the 2008 crash). You seem to accept that the regulations in question are not particularly onerous, and that you’re simply “irritated about the principle”. Well, how irritated are you, really? Because shortages of food and medicine and an extremely hefty recession aren’t a matter of “irritation”, unless you’d consider a smallpox rash an “irritation”. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260/167 "2019-01-09T14:36:42Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > I think the view is debatable, to put it no higher. Before joining the EU, UK GDP growth consistently underperformed Germany, France and Italy; since joining the EU, it has mostly outperformed them (apart from a hairy patch in the early 1990s, and again after 2008). Since these are all mid-size developed economies in the same region subject to many of the same external influences, this does suggest that being outside hampered the UK’s growth, while being inside has facilitated it. Our economy has already dropped below France’s, and there’s no reason to think that it will recover. Being part of the EU, but with our own currency, put us in an extremely strong position, but that’s all being jeapordised now. Whatever happens in the next few months/years, the UK will remain strongly tied to the rest of Europe socially, politically, and economically. That will be the case whether we remain in the EU, whether the EU somehow collapses entirely, or anything in between. The only thing leaving will accomplish is removing any possibility of influencing the direction of the EU. ---
**Author:** ![Brayne\_Ded](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Brayne\_Ded](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brayne_Ded)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260/168 "2019-01-09T15:10:05Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > We have had warnings of this. Those who wish to reverse the referendum are hyping it for all they’re worth. It might be scaremongering; it might not. There is no evidence one way or the other. Whether or not it actually happens remains to be seen. Given the massive bureaucratic overhead that will appear overnight, I don’t think the gloomy predictions are scaremongering. Merely accurate. The problems with referendums is that they are hopeless at dealing with complicated questions. The general public, and possibly even Nigel Farage, will come to realize that the EU was well worth the niggles and costs because it simplified and promoted inter-European trade. Without that, the UK is not competitive. ---
**Author:** ![Brayne\_Ded](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Brayne\_Ded](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brayne_Ded)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260/169 "2019-01-09T15:31:39Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Yeah, you all are being pretty obtuse, wanting to be sovereign and have your own currency and all. > > That attitude right there is what caused Brexit. The UK people are independent and proud and do not need to be told what to do from Brussels. A serious misunderstanding. The UK was not forced to change its currency, and did not do so. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the UK obtained a large number of concessions over the years, including Schengen (which was not a big issue in the EU, and note that it can be overruled, as the Danes did recently). The UK people are independent? OK, then show me an EU country whose people are not. Proud? True, but some other nationalities come to mind first. And price can be uncommonly close to arrogance. Do not “need” to be told what to do by Brussels? A matter of opinion, to say the least. Many EU governments say that they can only introduce important but unpopular legislation (especially that on ecological issues) by saying “Brussels made us do it.” Consider that Hungary and Poland both have governments that want to play fast and loose with the norms of the EU and the Council of Europe and the European Parliament by perpetuating their current right-wing regimes while enjoying the commercial benefits of EU membership. Perhaps you meant “do not want to be told what to do”. Very understandable. But no British gummint, of any flavor, has been notably touchy-feely, and much of the human rights legislation of the EU is far ahead of what the UK has - and will have. We are talking about a surveillance state, and I don’t mean Brussels. And Brexit involves the parts of Britain. What about Northern Ireland? With an open border, thanks to the EU, EU subsidies propping up a not so affluent part of the UK and paying for the reconciliation work to mend the wounds of “The Troubles”, it is quiet and peaceful at the moment. That will not last long after a Brexit. And then Scotland. While many Scots voted to leave, they might well reconsider it if the UK takes the predicted economic hit. An independent Scotland would have to apply separately anyway, so … look for another Scottish referendum within a few years. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260/170 "2019-01-09T15:32:47Z")
> [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > I’m not going to continue to debate with you, because a) while you have demonstrated a great deal of knowledge on the general issues, on this specific issue you don’t know what you are talking about, > b) I don’t wish to go into more detail about the subject as I would prefer the nature and place of my employment to remain relatively anonymous, What part of the presention of Bird & Bird, a leading British law firm is wrong then? How do you expect without a heavy bureaucracy to have the Opt Out for the online trading? More of the Brussels Cabal analysis? ---
**Author:** ![Brayne\_Ded](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Brayne\_Ded](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brayne_Ded)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260/171 "2019-01-09T15:33:52Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > How? > > No really - what’s a “sensible” way to leave a customs and trade union that you do most of your international trading with, and which you rely on heavily for imports and exports? What outcome could come from it that would make sense for the UK? I mean, if we set our baseline as “hard brexit with no fucking plan whatsoever” (i.e. what we’re careening towards now), then sure, you can do better than that, but better than the status quo? Good luck. > > And given that the current mess came about because of a referendum, what you seem to be saying is that you’ve learned nothing from the last two years. And this is where I start to get frustrated, because when people like you fail to learn from events like this, everyone suffers as a result. Good one, BPC. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260/172 "2019-01-09T15:42:28Z")
> [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > Not simple of course, but May’s way seems the only sensible option **What are the economic benefit’s of May’s plan?** > [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > and it is being blocked by idiots who think they can somehow make personal or political gain if it happens. The list of groups opposed to May’s plan includes: - the Labour party (official opposition) - the DUP (Government supporters) - all other political parties - Conservatives who prefer Remain - Conservatives who prefer ‘no deal’ - Conservatives who want to get rid of May - Conservatives who put ideology ahead of economic analysis So no chance of that plan passing. > [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > No, I would prefer a gradual transition away from the EU which will involve keeping similar trading deals in the short term. That is roughly what May’s plan entails, no? You’re not going to get that transition. Also that’s not how trading deals work. Once we leave the EU, all the EU trade deals stop working for us. > [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > I do think in the long term we will save some money from not subsidising the EU. **How much money?** **How will it compare to the money we lose by adopting WTO rules?** ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260/173 "2019-01-09T15:45:36Z")
> [@glee](#): > > **What are the economic benefit’s of May’s plan?** > [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > I personally am not looking for something “better than the status quo”, I accept a small economic hit in the short term (in the long-term I think there won’t be much difference) as an acceptable price of ‘smaller government’. Just sayin’. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260/174 "2019-01-09T15:56:45Z")
The ‘money saved from not subsidising the EU’ claim is also faulty. We’d be losing money, a lot more money, by not being within the Single Market and Customs Union. It’s like saying you’d save money on your rent by moving further away from the city centre, ignoring that you now have to take a much more expensive train. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260/175 "2019-01-09T17:25:07Z")
> [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > I didn’t read the article, as my argument is not to dispute or rebut it - it is that the points Ramira made are not relevant to the situation I was describing. . In fact they were relevant to your sweeping assertions / complaints about the EODR, which unlike the inaccurate descriptions you made, I gave the technical description of the well respected UK law firm. Your Statements: > [@](#): > > Then more recently there is the European Online Dispute Resolution platform, which simply duplicates (no doubt at vast expense) processes that already exist. In both cases a huge amount of money wasted for no discernible benefit whatsoever. > [@](#): > > My specific beef with the EODR is not so much that it exists, but that firms were essentially required to use it even when they only traded in the UK and a (better) UK version of the same service was already available. The article which you did not bother to read to inform yourself is from one of the leading UK law firms, Bird & Bird. It is apparently more important to make the complaints based on some personal understanding than to to engage on the objective analysis and facts. This is quite a pattern from the Brexit-desirious… [The Bird & Bird as a reminder gives this description](https://www.twobirds.com/en/news/articles/2017/global/eu-online-dispute-resolution-all-bark-and-no-bite) > [@](#): > > Purpose of the ODR platform > > The ODR platform arose out of an EU initiative to provide a simple and low-cost means of resolving disputes arising out of the sale of goods/ services, particularly in the context of cross-border sales. The ODR allows consumers to submit their contractual dispute to the platform and to start an Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) procedure online. > > The platform works essentially as a referral system – it recommends an appropriate dispute resolution body to the parties, automatically submits a consumer’s complaint to the chosen dispute resolution body and in some cases allows consumers/ traders to access communications from the dispute resolution body via the platform. However, substantive adjudication of the dispute is carried out by the dispute resolution body itself – the platform is simply a conduit. There are more than 260 dispute resolution bodies registered on the ODR, with over 40 for the UK alone. > > The procedure > > Once a consumer submits a complaint through the ODR platform, the relevant online trader is automatically notified and has a period of 10 days within which to reply. Should the trader decline to take part in the ODR process, the complaint will be automatically closed within 30 calendar days, with no further action taken. The consumer may still have other routes of redress open to them outside of the ODR process. > > Once the trader has replied, both parties have thirty calendar days from the submission of the complaint to agree on a dispute resolution body. The ODR platform will provide recommended dispute resolution bodies, however the parties may choose outside of this recommended list. If the online trader is required to use a particular dispute resolution body (for example due to a regulatory obligation) it should explain this to the consumer (there are further notification requirements that apply to the online trader under the Regulation if this is the case). If the parties cannot agree on a particular dispute resolution body, the complaint will be automatically closed within 30 calendar days with no further action taken. > > Once the parties have agreed on a dispute resolution body, the ODR platform will provide the body with the consumer’s complaint. The body then has three weeks to inform the parties of whether it accepts jurisdiction to handle the complaint. > > Once the dispute resolution body has accepted jurisdiction, it will handle the complaint in line with its usual procedures, and must offer a suggested solution with 90 days, in accordance with its own procedures and practices. The final decision of the body will be available to access on the ODR platform. Whether or not the suggested solution is legally binding on the parties depends upon the rules of the particular dispute resolution body handling the complaint. > > Benefits of the platform > > If a trader is notified of a consumer complaint through the platform, the most advisable course of action is for the trader to contact the consumer directly to resolve the issue, particularly if the complaint is straightforward3. > > However, if the trader wishes to dispute the complaint (and the complaint has some legal merit), engaging with the ODR process is a low-cost (and potentially non-binding) option that allows the parties to attempt to resolve the issue outside of pursuing or defending legal proceedings. > > It should also be noted that in some EU Member States, traders can use the platform to submit complaints against consumers, where the chosen dispute resolution body has the jurisdiction to adjudicate on such a dispute. The observations I made were relevant as based on the objective analysis by the legal observers and the simple observation that unless you have some kind of Great Internet Wall of English Internet, the online sales of necessity is exposing to non English consumers and it is more burdensome and more bureaucratic to have a mecanism of triage and oversight (as the mere self declaration of “I only have the domestic customers” - which is something that is going to be having to be controlled across all the jurisdictions and is so obviously and painfully open to the abuse… so the general obligation rather than the expensive control mechanisms is very logical. This is without making any representations about whether the EU mechanism - as I already said - works well or is well functoining. It addresses only your non factual assertions about the logical applcibility of such mecanism, which resemble in fact the same ones you were (are) making around the international trade rules,. Of course perhaps it is insulting to point out this incoherence. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Dead\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Cat)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260/176 "2019-01-09T18:01:48Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > The observations I made were relevant as based on the objective analysis by the legal observers and the simple observation that unless you have some kind of Great Internet Wall of English Internet, the online sales of necessity is exposing to non English consumers and it is more burdensome and more bureaucratic to have a mecanism of triage and oversight (as the mere self declaration of “I only have the domestic customers” - which is something that is going to be having to be controlled across all the jurisdictions and is so obviously and painfully open to the abuse… so the general obligation rather than the expensive control mechanisms is very logical. > > This is without making any representations about whether the EU mechanism - as I already said - works well or is well functoining. It addresses only your non factual assertions about the logical applcibility of such mecanism, which resemble in fact the same ones you were (are) making around the international trade rules,. > > Of course perhaps it is insulting to point out this incoherence. No, you are still wrong and your condescending tone is therefore even more misplaced than usual. It has nothing to do with the words you are putting into my mouth like “English Only internet”. The point that you are missing is that some businesses/industries are already prevented by existing regulations to sell their products to consumers outside their own country. Those are the ones for whom a Europe-wide platform is not only completely pointless but unnecessarily burdensome, regardless of cost. This really will be my last word on the subject otherwise I will be forced to take it to the Pit (unless you learn some humility), and it’s not worth it. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260/177 "2019-01-09T18:19:01Z")
> [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > No, you are still wrong and your condescending tone is therefore even more misplaced than usual. It has nothing to do with the words you are putting into my mouth like “English Only internet”. > > The point that you are missing is that some businesses/industries are already prevented by existing regulations to sell their products to consumers outside their own country. Really, what specific English businesses are forbidden to sell their products outside of their own country within the EU free trade in services and goods zone? I am very interested to learn. (and also how this new goal posting shifting corresponds with your quoted complaints initially) It is facts being sought here. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260/178 "2019-01-09T19:49:10Z")
> [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > Jesus. You can’t eat ‘pride’, Ultra. Nor are we told what to do by Brussels. That makes us much sense as claiming that California is told what to do by Washington DC, ignoring the huge number of Representatives it sends, its two senators, and its major economic clout within the US. FYI, California is being told what to do by the Trump Administration, and a successful campaign plank in the recent election was to promise to sue the hell out of Washington to stop this. But that’s the result of irrational rules in Washington, which doesn’t seem to be the case in Brussels. And California is still better off than if we didn’t have any representation in Washington at all, so your point stands. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260/179 "2019-01-09T20:14:50Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > Really, what specific English businesses are forbidden to sell their products outside of their own country within the EU free trade in services and goods zone? > > I am very interested to learn. Some military stuff, I guess, would need specific UK government permission for any export. Those kinds of businesses aren’t going to have an online shop though. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260/180 "2019-01-09T20:25:27Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > Some military stuff, I guess, would need specific UK government permission for any export. Those kinds of businesses aren’t going to have an online shop though. Of course this mechanism is aimed at the consumer business. His original complain I cite again: > [@](#): > > My specific beef with the EODR is not so much that it exists, but that firms were essentially required to use it even when they only traded in the UK and a (better) UK version of the same service was already available. And he complained they did not think of exemptions. My responses addressed this (as why it is actually a more complex and heavier approach, the idea of trying to carve out a company selling to consumers online claiming only in their own country inside of the EU trading zone - for a coordination service that is trying to address the problem and the challenge of the consumer redress inside of a big common goods market with the online sales sites - and the referalal mechanism to the arbitration bodies, this is some how some great burden and sin) Now the goal posts of the complaint seem to have morphed into some kind of English goods business (selling to consumers) that is forbidden to sell into another country… (although this is 100 per cent absent from his original complaints). And the British law firm note, responding to it or reading it, it is avoided. Apparently it is insulting to question the Brexit assertions and the non responses to the objective factual information. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brexit-chaos-at-the-ports-why-is-this-a-problem-now-but-was-not-a-problem-before-the-eu/827260.md?page=10)