UK had 'one or two' Brexit teething issues on fishing, minister says

[Chomper Higgot]

38 minutes ago, kingdong said:

Just stating a fact still wonder when you,d play the race card.

I didn’t mention ‘race’ you did, right after I called you out for going off on one of your ‘blame immigrants ‘ things.

[Tofer]

10 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Why no link to your source?

 

Because I'm not so pedantic as some on here....

[Tofer]

10 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Continue operating; so not new after all!

 

However, they almost got it right. From a credible source: More than 1,000 EU firms plan first UK office after Brexit.

 

That was a good self contradiction. If you'd have listened to the news cast you would have heard that stated.

 

I'm beginning to think you would argue black is white, just to have the last word... ????

Edited February 26, 2021 by Tofer

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Tofer said:

 

That was a good self contradiction. If you'd have listened to the news cast you would have heard that stated.

It wasn’t a ‘news cast’ is was social media content cobbled together by a bunch of rightwing geeks.

[Tofer]

10 hours ago, 7by7 said:

I did my best to give an analogy so simple that even you could understand. Obviously I failed!

 

Miserably! By using a ridiculous analogy.

Edited February 26, 2021 by Tofer

[Tofer]

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It wasn’t a ‘news cast’ is was social media content cobbled together by a bunch of rightwing geeks.

 

Whatever you think of the medium, it doesn't detract from the content.

 

I don't give a chuff who said it, unless it's Gypsy Rose Lee, I only care if the content is valid.

 

Why does the messenger offend you so, when all that's important is the message?

Edited February 26, 2021 by Tofer

[Chomper Higgot]

44 minutes ago, Tofer said:

 

Whatever you think of the medium, it doesn't detract from the content.

 

I don't give a chuff who said it, unless it's Gypsy Rose Lee, I only care if the content is valid.

 

Why does the messenger offend you so, when all that's important is the message?

Because the source you relied on compiles video footage, a process that includes selecting and editing.

 

Its a group of 9 rightwing geeks compiling propaganda for distribution on social media, that you are taken in by it is not a good reason for the rest of us to switch off to accept their nonsense.

[Tofer]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Because the source you relied on compiles video footage, a process that includes selecting and editing.

 

 

As is the case with any news source, not least of those offenders is the BBC. You can be sure you won't see this type of article on the BBC news, as they are too biased to report anything resembling positive Brexit news. Even in interviews they will talk over or shut down the conversation when it doesn't accord with their agenda, Andrew Marr and Laura Kuenssberg are perfect examples - cringeworthy!

 

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Its a group of 9 rightwing geeks compiling propaganda for distribution on social media, that you are taken in by it is not a good reason for the rest of us to switch off to accept their nonsense.

 

What part of that video news report was nonsense, in the content I referenced?

 

Pity you can't accept it was a bit of positive news for a change. It most certainly would not have been available on the left wing remainer media.

 

But since you have not managed to disprove the facts established from that report, we'll just have to assume your posts are sour grapes...

[CG1 Blue]

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Where in the  ‘news about the vaccine roll out’ is there evidence to back up Brexiteer false claims that as a member of the EU the UK would have been compelled to join the EU Vaccine procurement pact OR that Brexit player any part in the UK’s vaccine policies?

 

These are Brexiteer ‘inventions’ of the alternative reality they wish us all to swallow.

 

Brexit had no part in the UK’s vaccine procurement policy or vaccine roll out.

I'm not surprised you're denying the blatantly obvious. The truth hurts sometimes. It is funny seeing you try to defend the indefensible though ????

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Tofer said:

 

As is the case with any news source, not least of those offenders is the BBC. You can be sure you won't see this type of article on the BBC news, as they are too biased to report anything resembling positive Brexit news. Even in interviews they will talk over or shut down the conversation when it doesn't accord with their agenda, Andrew Marr and Laura Kuenssberg are perfect examples - cringeworthy!

 

 

What part of that video news report was nonsense, in the content I referenced?

 

Pity you can't accept it was a bit of positive news for a change. It most certainly would not have been available on the left wing remainer media.

 

But since you have not managed to disprove the facts established from that report, we'll just have to assume your posts are sour grapes...

You did not post a ‘news source’ you posted a link to a rightwing outfit that produces propaganda selectively edited propaganda videos for distribution on social media.

 

They are not a ‘news source’.

 

Away with you and your social media propaganda machine.

[Chomper Higgot]

45 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I'm not surprised you're denying the blatantly obvious. The truth hurts sometimes. It is funny seeing you try to defend the indefensible though ????

I’m still waiting for you to back up your claim that if the UK were still a member of the EU it would have been compelled to join the EU vaccine procurement pact - Your personal attacks do not detract from the fact you have made unsubstantiated claims that you are unable to back up.

 

 

 

 

[bannork]

2 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

I'm not surprised you're denying the blatantly obvious. The truth hurts sometimes. It is funny seeing you try to defend the indefensible though ????

Now that's exactly what I see the Brexiteers doing!

[7by7]

17 hours ago, kingdong said:

17 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

But you don't mind importing foreigners to do it?

 

Note; foreign workers in the UK have the same rights as British workers; including the minimum wage.

Not if the employer takes them on(literally and figuratively )) on a " self employed " basis.

 

Foreign workers, British workers or both?

 

What do you mean by "literally and figuratively" and why put self employed in quotation marks?

 

Surely you can't mean paying them cash in hand so they evade tax and NICs!

[7by7]

17 hours ago, kingdong said:

So the eu countries could have done the same as the uk?

 

Yes they could have done.

 

17 hours ago, kingdong said:

pity they didn,t as the body count rises.

 

The UK has now dropped to 4th in the table of death rates behind Belgium, Czechia and Slovenia, two of which are EU members (Source).

 

However, that is for deaths per million in total since the start of the pandemic. Look at deaths per million in the last 7 days. You'll see the UK is better than or close to all EU members except Czechia. 

 

I take no joy in using the deaths of millions to prove a point; but you brought them into the argument.

[7by7]

17 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

What in my post was wrong? 

 

All of it apart from "As it happened we were very much viewed as a 3rd country to the EU" I'll grant you that was possibly true then, definitely is now that the transition period is over.

 

17 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

And which lie from Hancock and Rees-Mog did I repeat? 

"if the UK had never voted for Brexit and had still been a full EU member, we'd have been obliged to join the EU vaccine program whether it was in law or not."

 

Hancock's 2nd December lie on Times Radio and Rees-Moggs' repetition of it the same day on Twitter. 

 

See Vaccine approval isn’t quicker because of Brexit

Quote

The head of the MHRA, Dr June Raine, has been clear that the vaccine was approved under EU law. Asked directly whether Brexit made the process quicker, she said: “We have been able to authorise the supply of the vaccine using provisions under European law which exist until 1 January.”

 

 

[7by7]

15 hours ago, vinny41 said:

Who said anything about the press  As she has stated in your link  she read the agreement as soon as it was published

meaning when it was published by the UK Government.

Maybe you are not aware that the  Government has its own publishing service

legislation.gov.uk Publishing

https://publishing.legislation.gov.uk/aboutus#:~:text=The National Archives is the,of Culture%2C Media and Sport.

 

Yes, the government does have their own publishing service; I knew that.

 

And they used that to publish the text of the agreement on the 24th December (see date on foot of every page of the document). Not the several days later which Ms Prentis says in her statement. "I was desperately keen to read the text of the Treaty (once a government lawyer, always a government lawyer) and did so as soon as it was published several days later.”

 

Wherever she read it, I have to wonder why she didn't she read it earlier than several days later. 

 

I also have to wonder why she did not know the details of the fisheries part of the agreement until then. She is the fisheries minister and surely should have been informed of, if not directly involved in, that part of the agreement during the negotiations, not after the agreement was signed!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[7by7]

8 hours ago, Tofer 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?

 

Until I contracted long Covid I was working at my local NHS Covid test centre!

 

I'm currently receiving SSP, paid for out of my NICs over my 40 years working life, and will return to work at the centre as soon as I'm asymptomatic and can provide a negative Covid test result.

 

Does that meet your definition of sitting "on their backsides chewing the cud at mine and the other tax payers expense?"

 

Correct me if I'm wrong; but are most Brexiteers here sitting on their backsides in Thailand and wont be affected by the problems of Brexit until or unless Sterling drops so low they can no longer meet their visa requirement?

[kingdong]

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I didn’t mention ‘race’ you did, right after I called you out for going off on one of your ‘blame immigrants ‘ things.

You missed out "illegal" in your accusation,illegal immigrants don,t comply with quarantine laws therefore threaten the health of the uk.anyway was merely raising a point,is it true theres been a lot of illegal immigration across the english channel?which county do they land in ? Where did the recent fast spreading mutation of the virus occur? I rest my case.

[kingdong]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

Foreign workers, British workers or both?

 

What do you mean by "literally and figuratively" and why put self employed in quotation marks?

 

Surely you can't mean paying them cash in hand so they evade tax and NICs!

On your first point,gig economies require a glut of cheap labour as provided by " freedom of movement ." a recent court case re uber has established their workers are actually employees subject to all its benefits,this will result in tax and nic contributions made at source,a nice little earner for the inland revenue bearing in mind the pending depression..

[vinny41]

18 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Yes, the government does have their own publishing service; I knew that.

 

And they used that to publish the text of the agreement on the 24th December (see date on foot of every page of the document). Not the several days later which Ms Prentis says in her statement. "I was desperately keen to read the text of the Treaty (once a government lawyer, always a government lawyer) and did so as soon as it was published several days later.”

 

Wherever she read it, I have to wonder why she didn't she read it earlier than several days later. 

 

I also have to wonder why she did not know the details of the fisheries part of the agreement until then. She is the fisheries minister and surely should have been informed of, if not directly involved in, that part of the agreement during the negotiations, not after the agreement was signed!

 

 

 

 

 

 

The date on the document is the date that the agreement was made not the date is was published 

Boris speech was at 15:30 UK time December 24th so I would hazzard a guess that the trade deal was published 1st working day after the Christmas Break either 28th or 29th December 

She would have known the UK position on fishing before the negotiations started, unlikely to have known the fishing details during the negotiations as that information was confidential by both sides

[7by7]

8 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

Another facile compilation.

 

Have you never heard of a free trade agreement?

 

Yes, I have heard of a free trade agreement. Unlike you, it seems, I not only know what the term means in general, I also know details of ours with the EU!

 

At it's most basic, a free trade agreement means that there are no import tariffs or quotas on products from one country entering another. It does not mean the completely free flow of goods and services such as that we enjoyed before Brexit.

 

The agreement between us and the EU runs to 1246 pages, and I freely admit to not having read it in it's entirety!

 

I have, though read the summaries published in the UK press; such as that I linked to in a previous reply to one of your posts where you said "Have you forgotten we're meant to have a free trade agreement with the EU?"

 

As you obviously couldn't be bothered to read it last time; here it is again: Brexit: What are the key points of the deal?

 

 

[7by7]

9 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

More deflection... ????

 

No; more pertinent facts which prove your assertion wrong.

[7by7]

9 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

I'll take that as another example of your illiteracy and incomprehension then.... 

 

No; it's an example of either my lack of any mind reading ability or your inability to give any positive benefit to the UK of Brexit.

[7by7]

8 hours ago, Tofer said:

19 hours ago, 7by7 said:

I did my best to give an analogy so simple that even you could understand. Obviously I failed!

 

Miserably! By using a ridiculous analogy.

 I'll try and use a simpler one aimed at five year olds in future.

[7by7]

4 hours ago, Tofer said:

<snip>

As is the case with any news source, not least of those offenders is the BBC. You can be sure you won't see this type of article on the BBC news, as they are too biased to report anything resembling positive Brexit news.

Wrong; again. Can't you get anything right?

 

From the BBC: Brexit: 1,000 EU finance firms 'set to open UK offices

[7by7]

22 minutes ago, kingdong said:

On your first point,gig economies require a glut of cheap labour as provided by " freedom of movement ." a recent court case re uber has established their workers are actually employees subject to all its benefits,this will result in tax and nic contributions made at source,a nice little earner for the inland revenue bearing in mind the pending depression..

 

Defining Uber drivers as employed rather than self employed has nothing to do with seasonal farm labourers, who are usually employed and therefore entitled to the minimum wage.

 

But don't take my word for it; take that of HMRC: National Minimum Wage Manual.

 

Will you now respond to what I actually asked.

 

Namely were you posting about foreign workers, British workers or both?

 

And what do you mean by "literally and figuratively" and why put self employed in quotation marks?

 

Surely you can't mean paying them cash in hand so they evade tax and NICs!

 

 

[kingdong]

7 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Defining Uber drivers as employed rather than self employed has nothing to do with seasonal farm labourers, who are usually employed and therefore entitled to the minimum wage.

 

But don't take my word for it; take that of HMRC: National Minimum Wage Manual.

 

Will you now respond to what I actually asked.

 

Namely were you posting about foreign workers, British workers or both?

 

And what do you mean by "literally and figuratively" and why put self employed in quotation marks?

 

Surely you can't mean paying them cash in hand so they evade tax and NICs!

 

 

If you cannot understand my post its pointless trying to explain it to you,brexit will do more for workers rights than all the <deleted> which came out of the eu.

[7by7]

25 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

The date on the document is the date that the agreement was made not the date is was published 

Boris speech was at 15:30 UK time December 24th so I would hazzard a guess that the trade deal was published 1st working day after the Christmas Break either 28th or 29th December 

She would have known the UK position on fishing before the negotiations started, unlikely to have known the fishing details during the negotiations as that information was confidential by both sides

 

"I would hazzard (sic) a guess." So rather than use the hard evidence on the document you are relying on guesswork!

 

I'm sure that she knew the UK's position on fishing before the negotiations started; we all did. It was, after all, one of Boris' red lines!

 

But as fisheries minister she should have known how that changed completely by the end of the negotiations. Maybe she was kept in the dark because that red line was yet another one Boris did away with!

 

 

[vogie]

8 minutes ago, kingdong said:

If you cannot understand my post its pointless trying to explain it to you,brexit will do more for workers rights than all the <deleted> which came out of the eu.

Exactly, even Jeremy Corbyn said that the EU doesn't respect workers rights, and that is saying something.

[7by7]

1 minute ago, kingdong said:

If you cannot understand my post its pointless trying to explain it to you,brexit will do more for workers rights than all the <deleted> which came out of the eu.

 

I understand that you have completely dodged the question by deviating into Uber!

 

BTW:-

19th January 2021: Business secretary confirms post-Brexit review of UK workers' rights

Quote

The business secretary has confirmed his department is reviewing how EU employment rights protections could be changed after Brexit, while insisting they will not be watered down.

 

27th January 2021: Review of UK workers' rights post-Brexit is axed in sudden U-turn

Quote

A controversial review into how EU employment rights protections could be changed after Brexit is no longer going ahead, the business secretary has announced.

 

But tell us, whilst not all of them are a direct result of our previous EU membership, which employee rights, such as the examples listed on this UK government page, do you want to do away with?