.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Tofer
-
Posts
1,485 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Tofer
-
-
On 2/1/2021 at 11:38 PM, 7by7 said:
One fact, of course, being that the different responses to the pandemic between the UK and EU are actually nothing to do with this topic!
Somewhat hypocritical considering your earlier post;
Quote;
How do you define the politics of your hero in your avatar if not far right?
A person too far right even for Farage and other UKIP MEPs who at the time, November 2018, all resigned from the party when then party leader Batten accepted him as a party member and appointed him as a special advisor. Despite UKIP's rules denying membership to those who have been part of extreme right-wing groups in the past.
Yaxley-Lennon founded the English Defence League, had been a member of the British National Party, and has had ties with the British Freedom Party. To be fair, though, his links to For Britain occurred in April and May 2019, after his UKIP failure.
-
1
-
-
On 2/1/2021 at 11:38 PM, 7by7 said:
Well you've learnt something today.
We all have our opinions, and some are lucky enough to be paid for expressing them.
But opinions are not facts.
One fact, of course, being that the different responses to the pandemic between the UK and EU are actually nothing to do with this topic!
Looks like a white flag to me....
Well done Vinny.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, bannork said:
Nearly 30% of small British firms have stopped exporting to the EU.
EU customers look elsewhere for supplies.
I wonder why we never before heard of such problems these exporters experience with exports to other countries??? Or is it specifically the EU, purposefully tying the process and system up in knots, and putting up arbitrary barriers to punish the UK.
I hope they remember it's a two way street, to the net benefit of the EU....
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, RayC said:
Surely you have answered your own questions? The EU's raison d'etre is to protect its' members' interests, therefore it is protectionist by definition.
The UK is no longer a member and therefore is not entitled to this protection. It is now, in this instance, a competitor.
The EU sees an opportunity to grab business for its' members' and is pursuing this objective. Why should this be a surprise? The EU would be failing in its' duty to its' members' if it did otherwise.
If that's the case, why have they agreed equivalence with all the other countries quoted in that link of HFF's.
It' specifically targeted at the UK as a vindictive punishment tactic, and they call themselves friends.....
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Surelynot said:
Isn't that what the UK is pursuing?....no rules, free market economy, survival of the fittest.....now we are free of the EU shackles we can do what we want....why even discuss any rules and regulations with them......let's just go it alone.....global Britain
It would appear we would be better off doing just that, since the EU manage to agree an equable arrangement with other independent countries.
Pity we didn't end up on WTO. Instead we're still negotiating with an ex / snubbed partner.
-
14 hours ago, Hi from France said:
“The EU has argued it must better understand how the UK intends to amend or alter the rules going forwards,” he said.
“This is a standard that the EU holds no other country to and would, I suspect, not agree to be held to itself. It is hard to see beyond one of two ways of interpreting this statement, neither of which stands up to much scrutiny.”
I still don't see any justification of the EU's actions, just a load of vindictive punishment, business grabbing, and protectionism. As your article clearly implies, and evidenced by the number of countries quoted as having being accepted for equivalence in line with international rules and regulations.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:
I suspect you are only seeing one side of the negotiations - like all trade negotiations large or small ... to get something you have to offer something of equal value to the other side (the UK had already left the EU as the first step rather than staying in the EU and negotiating exceptions, so this negotiation starts from WTO rules as a starting point). In this case I have no doubt the EU got something they wanted in return. What of equal value is the UK willing to offer the EU that would make it worth their while to have their economy controlled by financial institutions outside the Union? If Boris can figure out that, he likely would be able to get the same deal. The US deal will not put the US financially in the driver seat of the EU economy.
Nope, it's plain and simple protectionism and vindictive business grabbing.
This still does not highlight any justification for refusing equivalence overnight, since the UK cut and pasted the rules and regulations.
I'm still waiting for a feasible explanation...
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Surelynot said:
Not up to speed on this issue, but I thought this was still under discussion and was originally put on the back-burner whilst the trade deal was sorted.
It was, but I firmly believe the EU are dragging their feet to snatch as much from London as possible, without any real justification.
I was utterly amazed it was left out of the deal in the first place. I think Boris missed the opportunity there.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Surelynot said:
What are these EU punishment tactics?
OK! The lack of an acceptance of equivalence in the Financial services sector.
Candide did a fair reply to the shellfish issue, let's see you can justify the EU's stance on the Financial Services issue, since I still maintain the rules and regulations did not change overnight, and the EU have already agreed the same for the USA.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Surelynot said:
but there are far more who are milking the system.......UC fraud is a drop in the ocean compared to the wealthy avoiding and evading tax. If we spent as much time tracking down hidden wealth as we do hounding the poor all our taxes would be reduced.
Perfect example......https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tax/inheritance/inheritance-tax-and-how-the-dukes-of-westminster-avoid-it-on-the/
I couldn't agree more.... ????
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, tebee said:
Real problem is the amount of pollution in British fishing waters.
If it's so bad, why are the EU fisherman clamouring to get in there.
-
2
-
-
17 hours ago, vinny41 said:
First oyster exports since Brexit save historic Fal Fishery from doom
Mr Duane said Falcatch had to figure its way around export health certificates, catch certificates, getting a UK export agent plus a French import agent, customs rep and fiscal rep.
“The biggest issue once we figured our way around all that was that we, like most exporters, didn’t know about and had no government guidance on the need for a French VAT number to trade directly with our French customers which would take six to eight weeks to receive,” he added.
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/first-oyster-exports-brexit-save-5025070
Thank you Vinny, you made my day with that article. ???? ????
Particularly the bit about exporters needing a backbone.... ????
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, tebee said:
You are not getting the same treatment because the UK specifically stated it doesn't what to adhere to EU standards (presumably to allow for a US trade deal)
So you can't argue there is no valid reason to disrupt trade because we are not having identical regulations and standards, we have also refused to accept EU monitoring of those standards or mutually recognize qualifications. Therefor each load we ship now needs to be certified individually to adhere to the EU's standards.
I take your point, but I was under the impression the UK had cut and pasted all the extant EU rules and regulations.
-
18 hours ago, candide said:
Easy!
The EU regulation (voted by UK when it was a member) is that consumption of live and untreated molusc is only allowed from class A waters. According to retained EU law Regulation, Wales waters (for example) are classified as B by UK, and Scotland as A. So shellfish from Scotland can be consumed live and shellfish from Wales must be purified or treated. It's still the case in UK now as the law has been retained. You cannot consume shellfish from class B waters which have not been purified or treated. (See source)
https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/shellfish-classification
When UK was in the common market, it did not matter where shellfish from Wales were treated, so they could be treated after being transported from UK, in the area of consumption. This is important as the shelf life is shorter after treatment.
Now UK is not any more in the common market, so the treatment must be made before entry in the EU for shellfish from class B waters (ex Wales). Live shellfish from Scotland (class A waters) can still be imported without treatment.
Thank you, explanation understood and accepted!
Good to have you chaps on hand to do the leg work, since I'm retired I can't be bothered.
Too busy, pottering about in the mornings, winding down in the afternoon, and relaxing in the evenings... ????
-
18 hours ago, 7by7 said:
Take your complaint to Lord Frost who negotiated the trade agreement and Boris Johnson who signed it!
It's not the negotiated deal that's the cause, It's the EU's punishment tactics.
18 hours ago, 7by7 said:But think how much worse things would be with the option preferred by many Brexiteers; WTO rules!
At least it would stop all this crowing, since we would not be tied to the EU and you'd have nothing to applaud in their vindictive tactics.
18 hours ago, 7by7 said:As said to you many, many times; you voted to leave the EU; time to stop whingeing because you got what you voted for!
If you're going to continue repeating this mantra, at least try to get it right.
-
18 hours ago, 7by7 said:
Like I said; your source almost got it right.
I don't know about you, but when I was taught maths I learned that 1000 is less than 1500!
Quite, they also taught me to read and comprehend. It said 1,500 applications of which 1,000 are new companies. Do try to keep up....
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, 7by7 said:
Until the 31st December our goods and services did not have to comply with the EU's rules on imports from non members because. although we had left, we were still in the transition period and treated as a member.
Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm sure you will, but wasn't there a continuity of standards in the agreement?
The new rules are / should be applicable to the cross border administration, not the actual acceptability of the goods being traded, which hasn't changed overnight.
17 hours ago, 7by7 said:After that we were no longer a member and so treated as all other non members.
BS - If only!
17 hours ago, 7by7 said:Stop whinging because leaving the EU means we're not treated as members anymore. It's what you voted for!
It's you lot that should stop whinging, the deed is done. just trying to balance the argument.
Obviously it doesn't penetrate, since I've told you before, I didn't vote because I didn't get a chance, being in the middle of our relocation to Thailand with unregistered temporary addresses. I even told you I would probably have voted to stay for purely personal benefit, since the decision has cost me many £10,000's in the unfavourable exchange rate climate. However, it's done and there's little point in whining about it now. I can assure you, I should be the perfect candidate for your pity club, but I'm a bit more accepting when it comes to Brexit, since it is now a reality. It's high time you got on board and stopped trying to perpetuate the negative short term aspects. But, hey, if your happy being negative and pessimistic, then who am I to say....
-
18 hours ago, 7by7 said:
Technically you are correct
Halleluiah..., oh wait, there's a but, but, but...... ????
A bit more than technically I suggest;
I'm currently receiving SSP, paid for out of my NICs over my 40 years working life
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, 7by7 said:
I see that my comment on expat Brexiteers touched a nerve! Seems that your happy to dish it out, but hate taking it!
Just stating the facts. Some of us don't have the luxury of the UK social security crutch, and make our own way in life. I fail to see why that offends you.
Even when I was out of work for 2 years, in the late 80' financial crash, and the construction industry was on it's uppers, I didn't even register for free NI contributions, for which I was entitled to receive, even though I had too much in the bank to qualify for income support.
Since I could not get any job locally, being told I was too qualified for their positions, I instead took Thatcher's advice, got off my backside and travelled to Malaysia for a job.
So, yes, I do take exception at your unjustified slant against those of us who stand on our two feet, and support ourselves independently of the UK benefits system and, furthermore contribute UK taxes to support those that do not.
Just to qualify my opinion, I do not criticise those in genuine need of benefits, but there are far more who are milking the system. I know from personal experience, having let property to many benefit tenants, and have first hand knowledge of their circumstances. As such, I consider my disparaging attitude towards such individuals to be perfectly justified and founded on real time fact, not links to spurious commentators opinions, or ex-spurts statistics, forecasts or predictions.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, 7by7 said:
My quote was from this post of yours in which, after your comments on the unemployed, you said "But correct me if I'm wrong, are all remainers sat on their backsides chewing the cud at mine and the other tax payers expense?"
It was a rhetorical question, not a statement of fact, in a vein of sarcasm, which obviously went over your head.
-
17 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:
a lot of nice links to important press articles in this thread, thanks all
interestingly most of them had this nice disclosure when I clicked on them ????
Since you are here
Since you are here, we wanted to ask for your help.
Journalism in Britain is under threat. The government is becoming increasingly authoritarian and our media is run by a handful of billionaires, most of whom reside overseas and all of them have strong political allegiances and financial motivations.
Our mission is to hold the powerful to account. It is vital that free media is allowed to exist to expose hypocrisy, corruption, wrongdoing and abuse of power. But we can't do it without you.
If you can afford to contribute a small donation to the site it will help us to continue our work in the best interests of the public. We only ask you to donate what you can afford, with an option to cancel your subscription at any point.
To donate or subscribe to The London Economic, click here.
The TLE shop is also now open, with all profits going to supporting our work.
The shop can be found here.
You can also SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER .
The most prolific of these can't afford it, he's on SSP.
-
17 hours ago, 7by7 said:
I stand corrected.
Congratulations Vogie, you've achieved the impossible.... ????
-
2
-
-
17 hours ago, bannork said:
The EU know that the UK want to diverge in regulations,
Let's rephrase that statement, and see what it looks like from a different perspective;
The EU want to use that the UK possibly might diverge in regulations, to cause as much disruption and punishment as possible, combined with forcing business out of London and into Europe.
A more valid opinion, unless of course the EUC have crystal balls as well....
-
17 hours ago, bannork said:
The EU know that the UK want to diverge in regulations, next week Sunak will announce the proposed establishment of free ports in the UK.
If, or when that happens, then the EU can pull up the drawbridge. Until that time it is simply vindictive punishment, particularly since the UK have continuity agreements to prevent such situations as the shellfish fiasco.
17 hours ago, bannork said:The EU also know from experience that Johnson is totally untrustworthy, so any major divergence will result in retaliation, tariffs for example.
Fine, so be it, but to impose sanctions before the event is simply vindictive.
You talk about Johnson being untrustworthy. You have a short memory, forgetting very quickly UvdL's treachery.
17 hours ago, bannork said:The rules don't apply to the UK, they're special.'.
You mean the EU's inventive punishment rules....
-
2
-
No Brexit bonfire for City of London, but it won't be a 'rule taker'
in World News
Posted
Another one who can't read or comprehend. There was no mention of the vaccine thread in the post I highlighted. Try again....