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

[Tofer]

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.

Edited February 28, 2021 by Tofer

[Tofer]

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

Edited February 28, 2021 by Tofer

[Surelynot]

15 minutes ago, Tofer said:

 

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.

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/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/11/inheritance-tax-why-the-new-duke-of-westminster-will-not-pay-billions

Edited February 28, 2021 by Surelynot

[Surelynot]

The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that £1.2bn was lost to benefits fraud in 2013/14.

 

By contrast, HMRC’s most recent estimate of the annual “tax gap” – the money lost to the state through people not paying as much as they should – was £34bn.

[Tofer]

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....

[Tofer]

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....

Edited February 28, 2021 by Tofer

[Tofer]

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.

[Tofer]

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... ????

[Surelynot]

What are these EU punishment tactics?

 

For the purposes of customs, the UK is now treated as any other non-EU country. In particular, customs procedures and formalities apply to trade between the UK and the EU.

However, in accordance with the agreed Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, EU customs rules and procedures generally continue to apply to goods entering and leaving Northern Ireland.

[Tofer]

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.

[Tofer]

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.... ????

Edited February 28, 2021 by Tofer

[Tofer]

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.

[Tofer]

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/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/11/inheritance-tax-why-the-new-duke-of-westminster-will-not-pay-billions

 

I couldn't agree more.... ????

[Tofer]

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.

Edited February 28, 2021 by Tofer

[Surelynot]

8 minutes ago, Tofer said:

 

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.

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.

[Tofer]

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.

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, Tofer said:

 

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.

Are you saying in trade negotiations a country should not negotiate the best deal possible?

Edited February 28, 2021 by stevenl

[Hi from France]

4 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

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.

We have a thread here about this 

 

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1203535-no-brexit-bonfire-for-city-of-london-but-it-wont-be-a-rule-taker/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-16280046

Edited February 28, 2021 by Hi from France

[Surelynot]

A bone for the Brexiteers........from the Guardian no less......555

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/28/i-hate-to-say-it-but-britains-doing-ok-even-germany-envies-us?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

[bkkcanuck8]

12 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

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.

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.

[Tofer]

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...

[Tofer]

14 hours ago, Hi from France said:

We have a thread here about this 

 

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1203535-no-brexit-bonfire-for-city-of-london-but-it-wont-be-a-rule-taker/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-16280046

 

“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.

[Surelynot]

3 minutes ago, Tofer said:

I still don't see any justification of the EU's actions, just a load of vindictive punishment, business grabbing, and protectionism

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 

[Tofer]

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.

[RayC]

2 hours ago, Tofer said:

 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...

 

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.

[Tofer]

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..... 

[RayC]

16 minutes ago, Tofer said:

 

If that's the case, why have they agreed equivalence with all the other countries quoted in that link of HFF's.

Presumably because the EU deem it in their interests to do so.

16 minutes ago, Tofer said:

 

It' specifically targeted at the UK as a vindictive punishment tactic, and they call themselves friends..... 

 

That is your opinion. Another way of looking at it is to say that it is a pragmatic business decision.

 

As a business associate once said to me: "Anything for a friend ... for a fee".

[Rookiescot]

3 hours ago, Tofer said:

 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...

 

Maybe the EU got sick of being insulted by Brexiteers?

[candide]

 

 

6 hours ago, Tofer said:

 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...

Actually, the EU did not refuse equivalence overnight to all activities. For clearing houses (the only activity granted equivalence in the U.S.), there's a 18 months extension granted to UK clearing houses.

Edited March 1, 2021 by candide

[bannork]

Nearly 30% of small British firms have stopped exporting to the EU.

EU customers look elsewhere for supplies.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/brexit-uk-manufacturers-import-export-orders-b1790270.html