EU demands 44 billion to start trade negotiations

[WTFH]

So the UK has given no assurances (or processes/offers whatever you want to call it) whatsoever about EU citizens (and therefore employees) living/working in the UK? Are you sure about that?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/u...of-eu-citizens


Your premise is looking false. Prove the 'need' to move, or find other reasons for your answer of the UK must pay.

The need to move is there because the UK is leaving the EU, so the UK will no longer be part of the EU, so the UK will not be a location within the EU, so EU bodies relating to EU processes will not be located within a country that has voluntarily chosen to leave the EU.

Again, you are trying to twist arguments to excuse your shortcomings.

Imagine this scenario: If Belgium left the EU, would the EU maintain a parliament in Belgium?

[WTFH]

3 of my ex-wives used that excuse.....

What excuse did the others use?

[BrilloPad]

What excuse did the others use?

The most popular was being female.

[WTFH]

The most popular was being female.

Hold on, if your most popular wife was female, were the others male?

[BrilloPad]

Hold on, if your most popular wife was female, were the others male?

You have quite a gender fixation. HR will send you on a transgender awareness course. Hosted by NLyUK.

How many infraction points do I get for discussing non-Brexit stuff in the Brexit forum?

[Bean]

And as per previous post you seem to know very little about supply chain process. And as per your MO, you're trying to tie two discussions together to drag both down to your level.
Two ways your argument is false.
1. When a customer places an order with a supplier for products, the customer will want said products to be produced to the standards they request (this is irrespective of regulations). If the customer wants the product to also comply with particular regulations then these will also be included in the RFQ and should be in the contractual documentation as well.
2. On receipt of the products there will be a receiving process that will also include validation and checks to confirm that the delivery matches the order. These checks occur before putaway. Some receiving routes will be straightforward, particularly from trusted suppliers, so it may only be a 0.1% check, for example. When a new supplier is taken on, they should not be on the trusted supplier route so the first few deliveries may be 100% checked, then reduced down over time.

It's all part of testing and quality control.

Comigel had been supplying Findus (and possibly with horsemeat) since at least 2012, the scandal was made public in 2013. (Publicly available sources)

Please tell me more about how Findus QA'd a ready-made lasagne and gave it a PASS for possibly a year, with a 0.1% check, let alone on a 100% check on the first few deliveries.....simple probabilities indicate it would have been found, if they had...

Hail WTFH and your supply chain QA knowledge

[Bean]

The need to move is there because the UK is leaving the EU, so the UK will no longer be part of the EU, so the UK will not be a location within the EU, so EU bodies relating to EU processes will not be located within a country that has voluntarily chosen to leave the EU.

Again, you are trying to twist arguments to excuse your shortcomings.

Imagine this scenario: If Belgium left the EU, would the EU maintain a parliament in Belgium?

Did the EU pay for the building of the offices of the regulators currently residing in the UK?, otherwise your scenario is flawed.

Shortcomings? I'm asking questions and having a discussion, what are my alleged shortcomings WTFH?

I've asked why they 'need' to move, not why they want to.

What exactly will prevent them from doing the exact same job in the offices they previously (currently) used/use?

[WTFH]

You have quite a gender fixation. HR will send you on a transgender awareness course. Hosted by NLyUK.

How many infraction points do I get for discussing non-Brexit stuff in the Brexit forum?

Zero

[WTFH]

Did the EU pay for the building of the offices of the regulators currently residing in the UK?, otherwise your scenario is flawed.

Shortcomings? I'm asking questions and having a discussion, what are my alleged shortcomings WTFH?

I've asked why they 'need' to move, not why they want to.

What exactly will prevent them from doing the exact same job in the offices they previously (currently) used/use?

Who paid for the construction of a building is of little relevance, another straw man from you.


Costs - infrastructure, etc.
Replacing staff (you know when someone retires, etc).
But mostly it's about going from in-house to outsourced for a government body.

[Bean]

Who paid for the construction of a building is of little relevance, another straw man from you.


Costs - infrastructure, etc.
Replacing staff (you know when someone retires, etc).
But mostly it's about going from in-house to outsourced for a government body.

Just pointing out your scenario is flawed due to the details being different to the scenario I'm actually asking about - hardly a strawman. (The fact you say 'little' rather than 'no' relevance proves it has at least some bearing, even in your own view!)

If anything, your parliament scenario is more akin to a strawman definition, as you didn't show why they 'needed' to move...

Strawman:
An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.


Let's revisit the question again:
What exactly will prevent them from doing the exact same job in the offices they previously (currently) used/use?

Remember, why do they 'need' to relocate, not 'want' - and no strawmen please