EU demands 44 billion to start trade negotiations

[Bean]

Of course it is. The UK has decided to leave the EU so these regulatory institutions need to move.

Therefore the UK should pay.

Blame the leave voters not the EU, they're the ones who've caused this mess.

Thank you for directly answering the questions posed.

The UK is happy to keep them here, so why do they 'need' to move?

[BlasterBates]

Thank you for directly answering the questions posed.

The UK is happy to keep them here, so why do they 'need' to move?

No they're not they will change the law to make it impossible. They notified the EU to that effect last March.

[Bean]

No they're not they will change the law to make it impossible. They notified the EU to that effect last March.

That may be your interpretation of implementing article 50, but a quick google search suggests the evidence is against you;
https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...ive&gws_rd=ssl

So, why do they 'need' to move?

This is pretty important, since it's the premise of your answer...

[BlasterBates]

That may be your interpretation of implementing article 50, but a quick google search suggests the evidence is against you;
https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...ive&gws_rd=ssl

So, why do they 'need' to move?

This is pretty important, since it's the premise of your answer...

Completely and utterly ridiculous to suggest that EU employees will have to work in a country without any rights about whether their spouse can come over and whether they won't be thrown out after they've retired.

[WTFH]

Completely and utterly ridiculous to suggest that EU employees will have to work in a country without any rights about whether their spouse can come over and whether they won't be thrown out after they've retired.

No, you don't understand, EU employees working for EU government bodies checking EU regulations should be based outside the EU, because that's Bean logic.

Bean, the UK is leaving the EU, get used to that. That means any EU processes currently handled in the UK will need to be relocated, in the same way that UK MEPs will be unemployed in the EU and will need to be relocated.

It's almost as if some people voted for something that they had no clue about and now want to blame everyone else for their choice....

[BlasterBates]

It's like divorcing someone and wanting to keep the house to save having to pay for an estate agent to sell the house.

[Bean]

No, you don't understand, EU employees working for EU government bodies checking EU regulations should be based outside the EU, because that's Bean logic.

Bean, the UK is leaving the EU, get used to that. That means any EU processes currently handled in the UK will need to be relocated, in the same way that UK MEPs will be unemployed in the EU and will need to be relocated.

It's almost as if some people voted for something that they had no clue about and now want to blame everyone else for their choice....

Well of course he doesn't understand......you labelled him stupid earlier in the thread - so why are you expecting comprehension now?

You're talking about people with no clue? Pot, kettle - Tell me again how supermarkets should be food inspectors
http://forums.contractoruk.com/brexi...ml#post2492025

Completely and utterly ridiculous to suggest that EU employees will have to work in a country without any rights about whether their spouse can come over and whether they won't be thrown out after they've retired.

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.

[Bean]

It's like divorcing someone and wanting to keep the house to save having to pay for an estate agent to sell the house.

https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=30563

"However, practically speaking, it might make sense not to sell a house from a financial point of view and divorcing spouses can agree not to sell a property."

Another bad metaphor from you eh?

[BrilloPad]

It's like divorcing someone and wanting to keep the house to save having to pay for an estate agent to sell the house.

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

[WTFH]

You're talking about people with no clue? Pot, kettle - Tell me again how supermarkets should be food inspectors
http://forums.contractoruk.com/brexi...ml#post2492025
.

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.