![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
I've found this intriguing info, possibly relevant to this article, in the "Originating Products" section of "Introduction to rules of origin and claiming duties when trading between the UK and EU" ( https://www.gov.uk/guidance/introduction-to-rules-of-origin-and-claiming-duties-when-trading-between-the-uk-and-eu) on the UK government's HM Revenue & Customs site:
If I've read this correctly (and I've even used an English accent), it seems to mean that, even though the UK has left the EU, goods manufactured in the UK can still be said to originate in the EU, and vice versa.
I don't claim to understand why, after such a high-profile breakup, either entity would maintain they were still one community when it came to buying and selling stuff. Wouldn't it be notable, though?
And has there been no public discussion on how it could possibly serve consumer interests not to know which part of a whole subcontinent a product came from? Or do Europeans tend to roll over when it comes to that kind of thing (maybe for historical reasons, e.g. occupation)?
Finally, can any two or more countries choose to sidestep the whole idea of origin labelling this way? Wouldn't that render this topic rather spongy, imperiling its WP "priority" (or whatever the system is that determines how much editorial attention topics merit—the terms often escape me)?
Even if nothing I've cited and/or babbled about here pertains to this article, or to much of anything else (although I don't know why HM Revenue & Customs would bother posting it otherwise, as even their name seems very official), can we agree it's right up our alley as far as the number of details, inclusion of lists, formatting, etc. go? –
AndyFielding (
talk)
10:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Due to this article's unusually high level of jargon and corp-o-speak, I'm compelled to inquire about a few apparent inconsistencies:
If I have further thoughts on any of this, I'll post them on other topics' Talk pages, where they may make more sense. – AndyFielding ( talk) 11:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
I've found this intriguing info, possibly relevant to this article, in the "Originating Products" section of "Introduction to rules of origin and claiming duties when trading between the UK and EU" ( https://www.gov.uk/guidance/introduction-to-rules-of-origin-and-claiming-duties-when-trading-between-the-uk-and-eu) on the UK government's HM Revenue & Customs site:
If I've read this correctly (and I've even used an English accent), it seems to mean that, even though the UK has left the EU, goods manufactured in the UK can still be said to originate in the EU, and vice versa.
I don't claim to understand why, after such a high-profile breakup, either entity would maintain they were still one community when it came to buying and selling stuff. Wouldn't it be notable, though?
And has there been no public discussion on how it could possibly serve consumer interests not to know which part of a whole subcontinent a product came from? Or do Europeans tend to roll over when it comes to that kind of thing (maybe for historical reasons, e.g. occupation)?
Finally, can any two or more countries choose to sidestep the whole idea of origin labelling this way? Wouldn't that render this topic rather spongy, imperiling its WP "priority" (or whatever the system is that determines how much editorial attention topics merit—the terms often escape me)?
Even if nothing I've cited and/or babbled about here pertains to this article, or to much of anything else (although I don't know why HM Revenue & Customs would bother posting it otherwise, as even their name seems very official), can we agree it's right up our alley as far as the number of details, inclusion of lists, formatting, etc. go? –
AndyFielding (
talk)
10:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Due to this article's unusually high level of jargon and corp-o-speak, I'm compelled to inquire about a few apparent inconsistencies:
If I have further thoughts on any of this, I'll post them on other topics' Talk pages, where they may make more sense. – AndyFielding ( talk) 11:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)