On 1/3/2021 at 1:12 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

But British pharmaceutical companies can’t sell to Europe without meeting EU standards.

 

More red tape for a major U.K. industry.

If British pharmaceuticals were all 100% EU complaint right up until 11 p.m. GMT on 31st December, what dastardly sleight of hand has suddenly made them non-compliant a minute later?

 

Or has their compliance been magicked away?

3 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

If British pharmaceuticals were all 100% EU complaint right up until 11 p.m. GMT on 31st December, what dastardly sleight of hand has suddenly made them non-compliant a minute later?

 

Or has their compliance been magicked away?

The problem is certification, if the UK’s certification isn’t recognized then yes their compliance has been ‘magicked away’.

 

And of course every new pharmaceutical needs to meet EU standards to enter the EU market.

 

A simple solution is adopt and maintain EU standards, but that would not do would it.

Edited January 4, 20215 yr by Chomper Higgot

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

...if the UK’s certification isn’t recognized...

And this is a real threat?

 

Worst case I can see additional paperwork but if something was intrinsically safe at 11:00, it's still intrinsically safe at 11:01.

16 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Increased poverty, wealth disparity, unemployment, the NHS and government incompetence/corruption would be my guess.

My experience is that it will hinge on something relatively petty , it often does.

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

And this is a real threat?

 

Worst case I can see additional paperwork but if something was intrinsically safe at 11:00, it's still intrinsically safe at 11:01.

It’s nothing to do with safety whatsoever

 

Good grief it’s been explained quite simply. Have you a comprehension of the ‘additional paperwork’ from a trading bloc you’ve just <deleted> off ? 

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The problem is certification, if the UK’s certification isn’t recognized then yes their compliance has been ‘magicked away’.

 

And of course every new pharmaceutical needs to meet EU standards to enter the EU market.

 

A simple solution is adopt and maintain EU standards, but that would not do would it.

Exactly - and wait for the cancer suffering Brexiteers whose treatment isn’t as advanced as it could be as we don’t need those pesky European scientists to give us a steer! 
 

 

Sir Kier agreed with everything Boris has just done in the new lockdown, no buts, or I would have done this. A Very astute move by him, I think, came over very well. Boris is going to have a problem with this guy

 

Not a fan of his btw

14 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The size of the economy is irrelevant to the issues I mentioned.

 

I have had a wonderful day thank you.

Just had emails from clients who do business with the UK all of a sudden extra forms and extra costs. They are considering stopping ordering from the UK. So there will be an negative effect from Brexit for sure. 

 

The clients asked me all kind of things i could not answer because the new rules are clear as mud and not yet set in law.

11 hours ago, NanLaew said:

And this is a real threat?

 

Worst case I can see additional paperwork but if something was intrinsically safe at 11:00, it's still intrinsically safe at 11:01.

Well there you have it.

 

More paperwork.

 

Great for business 

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well there you have it.

 

More paperwork.

 

Great for business 

....and employment.....????

On 1/3/2021 at 10:57 AM, rooster59 said:

according to a new poll.

The media just can't stop assuming.

34 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well there you have it.

 

More paperwork.

 

Great for business 

Yea my experience too extra paperwork and extra costs. Then you got some people laughing about the post that is based fully on the truth. Just people who don't want to believe this is going to cost the UK money. 

 

Guess its better to keep up blinkers and deny it all. Ignoring people with real experience. 

On 1/2/2021 at 11:34 PM, robblok said:

You mean before he sold his fishermen out and accepted EU standards ? Things he said he would not. 

He did not sell out fisherman. The UK fishers sold themselves out when they sold their quotas for money.

They were greedy and wanted quick profit. No one talks about that.  Over 1/2 the UK  quota was sold to companies from Spain, Netherlands and Iceland. UK government can not take them back because they are legal sale contract. The total value of UK quotas is just under 300 million pound. Not very big compared to the other benefits that were at stake.

 

Scottish fishers were smart and held their quotas. They planned for future. They have better managed their 500 million+ pound quota.  Northern Ireland did same with 70 million+ pound quota.  These two don't have a problem with foreign quotas.

 

12 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The problem is certification, if the UK’s certification isn’t recognized then yes their compliance has been ‘magicked away’.

 

And of course every new pharmaceutical needs to meet EU standards to enter the EU market.

 

A simple solution is adopt and maintain EU standards, but that would not do would it.

Companies outside of EU have been managing to comply for a long time. If India, Canada, USA can be EU compliant, I think UK can be too. UK has an advantage because its regulations/procedures were already  EU compliant.  In any case, all drugs have to be certified  through clinical trial according to local country laws. There are no consistent clinical trial regulations in the EU. If you want to  bring drug to Germany, there must be an acceptable clinical trial done for German standard. Same for Belgium, Netherlands, France etc. Each country requires its own clinical trial.

A veiled flame and reply has been removed

4 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Companies outside of EU have been managing to comply for a long time. If India, Canada, USA can be EU compliant, I think UK can be too. UK has an advantage because its regulations/procedures were already  EU compliant.  In any case, all drugs have to be certified  through clinical trial according to local country laws. There are no consistent clinical trial regulations in the EU. If you want to  bring drug to Germany, there must be an acceptable clinical trial done for German standard. Same for Belgium, Netherlands, France etc. Each country requires its own clinical trial.

No there are all sorts of new forms needed and extra cost. Just got emails from Dutch clients that work with the UK asking if i knew what to do. Telling me it will be more expensive. Told them to look for other suppliers but in the EU. (if they could get it for the same price or cheaper). 

 

Had 2 of those emails only for a couple of 100.000 per year but still. I am sure I am not the only one who sees these things.

Just to clarify,

 

Clients buy stuff in UK but now need an EORI nr and the 0% deal only goes for products MADE in the UK. So many companies that import stuff and then sell it to EU clients will not have 0% like before.

 

Those goods will now be taxed. So things are definitively changing. This is bad for UK companies that import stuff from China  (or other countries ) to sell in the EU.

 

So extra paperwork and extra costs.

10 hours ago, Bruntoid said:

It’s nothing to do with safety whatsoever

 

Good grief it’s been explained quite simply. Have you a comprehension of the ‘additional paperwork’ from a trading bloc you’ve just <deleted> off ? 

 

No I haven't.

 

Have you? Got a picture of all this documentation or something?

I'm amazed this thread is seen as news. 

 

The topic is simply the British parlimentary system. 

25 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yea my experience too extra paperwork and extra costs. Then you got some people laughing about the post that is based fully on the truth. Just people who don't want to believe this is going to cost the UK money. 

 

What? It will cost the UK a pittance with what was sucked out of the UK's wallet as an EU 'partner'.

4 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

 

What? It will cost the UK a pittance with what was sucked out of the UK's wallet as an EU 'partner'.

That is what you think plus there is an important difference something you probably did not think about.

 

While the UK state might save money. Its the business that take the hit. Do you think that the UK will lower its taxes to compensate those business owners ? So its loss of revenue in businesses for the normal man in the street. 

 

So unless the UK will lower its taxes the man in the street will feel the pain. How likely do you think it is they compensate the business for loss income ?

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

That is what you think plus there is an important difference something you probably did not think about.

 

While the UK state might save money. Its the business that take the hit. Do you think that the UK will lower its taxes to compensate those business owners ? So its loss of revenue in businesses for the normal man in the street. 

 

So unless the UK will lower its taxes the man in the street will feel the pain. How likely do you think it is they compensate the business for loss income ?

 

You just carry on with the usual, "You'll be sorry" refrain. There's no way ANYONE on EITHER side can CATEGORICALLY say how both sides will will fare as they move forward. Agreed that a  lot of work needs to be done by BOTH sides to compensate for the UK, as a SIGNIFICANT partner, leaving the EU. The tagging of extra paperwork and permitting procedures as hugely detrimental is yet another red herring and you can keep that quota!

6 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

 

You just carry on with the usual, "You'll be sorry" refrain. There's no way ANYONE on EITHER side can CATEGORICALLY say how both sides will will fare as they move forward. Agreed that a  lot of work needs to be done by BOTH sides to compensate for the UK, as a SIGNIFICANT partner, leaving the EU. The tagging of extra paperwork and permitting procedures as hugely detrimental is yet another red herring and you can keep that quota!

No your side just constantly keeps saying there wont be a problem. While i come with real data that it will be a problem and you don't even adres my post between the difference between state and businesses. Fact is this will cost the UK a lot. 

 

So far all reports and data i have seen shows that. Could you show me an article that actually states that the UK will benefit from this. There are plenty of reports stating the negative sides. But so far I have seen little backup of your so called positive things.

 

Just speculation while on the other hand my example is NOT speculation but practical. 

 

Do find me an article showing the UK will benefit and I will show you reports it wont. But I really have not seen one positive report of the UK benefitting so Id be eternally grateful if you can show me something like that.

 

If you cant ill believe the reports done by the economists that say its bad.

 

To add it might cost my clients too as now they have to look for a different supplier.

Edited January 5, 20215 yr by robblok

54 minutes ago, robblok said:

No your side just constantly keeps saying there wont be a problem.

 

Ah yes, the future for ALL couched in the narrow construct of "sides" (yet) again.

 

Thanks, but you just lost my attention.

2 hours ago, robblok said:

No there are all sorts of new forms needed and extra cost. Just got emails from Dutch clients that work with the UK asking if i knew what to do. Telling me it will be more expensive. Told them to look for other suppliers but in the EU. (if they could get it for the same price or cheaper). 

 

Had 2 of those emails only for a couple of 100.000 per year but still. I am sure I am not the only one who sees these things.

I would have thought that advice was obvious to any business...????

17 minutes ago, transam said:

I would have thought that advice was obvious to any business...????

No its not clear to them, they wanted to know about the papers and how to get those numbers. For them it was at first not clear that this would cost them a lot more. But i told them it would be a lot more expensive because of import duties. VAT could be reclaimed. But import duties not.

 

So they were not clear if the import duties were claimable too. Anyway big loss for many UK sellers that import stuff from other places to resell in the EU. All of a sudden they are 20% more expensive. 

 

Also a headache for my clients as they will have to find a new  supplier. Before people would do business with the UK because easy communication (English and in this case Dutch as they ones who had the business in UK were Dutch selling to my Dutch client). Now they will have to look in other parts of Europe that is a bit harder to do. But for 20% it will be worth their wile. 

 

Or perhaps they will go straight to China. Not just a loss for the UK but also a headache for the Dutch but the Dutch client has at least options. The UK supplier has none (besides cutting his prices or hoping the client is willing to pay the more expensive price). So this will effect UK exports.

 

 

On 1/3/2021 at 11:34 AM, robblok said:

You mean before he sold his fishermen out and accepted EU standards ? Things he said he would not. 

 

That's you're interpretation which you are presenting as factual.

 

Would you care to explain your reasoning, starting from where each party started, i.e. before May's best ever, can't be changed deal with Juncker; to the Johnson Ursula vd L current deal please?

 

 

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

That's you're interpretation which you are presenting as factual.

 

Would you care to explain your reasoning, starting from where each party started, i.e. before May's best ever, can't be changed deal with Juncker; to the Johnson Ursula vd L current deal please?

 

 

Not my interpretation dear Bearboxer, but that of the UK fishermen. I linked articles where they stated as much. I take it they know what they are talking about. 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-fish/pm-sold-out-fish-in-brexit-trade-deal-fishermen-say-idUKKBN2900KG

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/26/deal-fishing-industry-boris-johnson-betrayal-eu-demands

 

 

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

Not my interpretation dear Bearboxer, but that of the UK fishermen. I linked articles where they stated as much. I take it they know what they are talking about. 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-fish/pm-sold-out-fish-in-brexit-trade-deal-fishermen-say-idUKKBN2900KG

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/26/deal-fishing-industry-boris-johnson-betrayal-eu-demands

 

 

What happens when the transition period is over.....?

23 hours ago, transam said:

What happens when the transition period is over.....?

If they are lucky they get all the rights, but that was not what was promised. But i know you don't believe what fishermen say unless you have spoken to them. They consider it a sell out. They are Brits. 

 

Edited January 6, 20215 yr by onthedarkside
personal comment removed