7 minutes ago, Tofer said:

Does that opinion apply then to all the trade deals Liz Truss has signed with about 70 countries?

 

Your delicate sensibilities don't apply in real business world, of which you obviously have no concept or experience.

Caveat emptor...the EU will be much more circumspect in future as will other nations.

On 3/13/2021 at 4:45 PM, Hi from France said:

I do not believe a word of this, especially in regard to Northern Europe countries. 

But I trust you can prove what you are writing here ? 

The truth is in your answer, since you would, without exception, find your precious quotations to disprove that statement if you could.

I've told you before, I'm not about to waste my time searching for evidence, since I know it to be a fact from common MSM news reports. I rely on my mental ability to retain facts and don't therefore need to plagiarise others opinions. You can accept that or not, I really don't give a fig...

On 3/13/2021 at 9:45 AM, Hi from France said:

I do not believe a word of this, especially in regard to Northern Europe countries. 

But I trust you can prove what you are writing here ? 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors

On 3/13/2021 at 5:21 PM, candide said:

So where did they put the €336 million prepayment made in August?

The aim of a prepayment is just that: finance expenses related to the order made, so that the supplier doesn't need to use his own money.

And you know that how??

You missed the point, it is AZ's money the minute it is handed over, under whatever terms the contract required for advance payment.

The EU did not sponsor the development in advance of it being certified for use, they waited for it's approval before lodging their orders for a fully regulated product, unlike the UK.

It's no big deal anymore anyway, since the EU prefer to play vindictive politics with thousands of EU citizens lives, by suspending it's use contrary to their own EU medical regulators and the WHO's scientific advice.

4 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors

Very nicely edited to distort the facts, since the chart, in full, clearly shows the UK top of the list of European countries as a percentage of GNI.

Thank you for proving my earlier point.

20 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Signed....not negotiated

What a ridiculous statement.

3 minutes ago, Tofer said:

Very nicely edited to distort the facts, since the chart, in full, clearly shows the UK top of the list of European countries as a percentage of GNI.

Thank you for proving my earlier point.

The UK's foreign aid programme has, historically, surpassed any of the EU nations commitment.............apart from Germany.

4 minutes ago, Tofer said:

What a ridiculous statement.......

....of fact.

1 hour ago, Surelynot said:

The UK's foreign aid programme has, historically, surpassed any of the EU nations commitment.............apart from Germany.

I suggest you read your own link in full.

The UK's foreign aid programme has surpassed that of the EU's, including Germany, since our contributions as a percentage of GNI are higher.

1 hour ago, Tofer said:

I suggest you read your own link in full.

The UK's foreign aid programme has surpassed that of the EU's, including Germany, since our contributions as a percentage of GNI are higher.

Have you included foreign aid from EU institutions? 

5 hours ago, Surelynot said:

5 hours ago, Tofer said:

Does that opinion apply then to all the trade deals Liz Truss has signed with about 70 countries?

Signed....not negotiated

Indeed, most of them are simply roll overs of previous deals negotiated by the EU which we had when we were members or, like the Japanese one, the crumbs from the EU's table.

Even so, those countries would be fools not to be keeping a wary eye on us, following Johnson's stated willingness to tear up international agreements and treaties whenever it suits him.

5 hours ago, Tofer said:

That was a precursor to a subsequent trade agreement, applied in good faith. So far this would also be deemed null and void, since there's been little good faith and it's not even been signed and ratified by the EU to date.

The WA was certainly signed in good faith by the EU; but Johnson? Well, as we all know he has shown himself more than willing to break it!

The EU has not yet officially ratified the trade and cooperation agreement as the Commission does not have the power to do so without the approval of the member states and European Parliament. 

From UK agrees more time for EU to ratify post-Brexit pact

Quote

EU member states have requested more time to prepare legally valid translations of the treaty so it is usable in all 24 official languages of the bloc, and the European Parliament wants to examine it before voting.

However, 

Quote

It is currently in force under provisional authorisation in the EU.

So, although Johnson has shown he will if and when it suits him, how could anyone legally or morally deem the WA to be null and void?

5 hours ago, Tofer said:

It's no big deal anymore anyway, since the EU prefer to play vindictive politics with thousands of EU citizens lives, by suspending it's use contrary to their own EU medical regulators and the WHO's scientific advice.

The EU has not suspended the use of any vaccine.

See the various posts on this in the relevant threads.

6 hours ago, Tofer said:

And you know that how??

You missed the point, it is AZ's money the minute it is handed over, under whatever terms the contract required for advance payment.

I know it because the contract precisely describes how the initial €336 million funding must be used. So It's you who missed the point.

The contract also specifies the delivery schedule.

4 hours ago, Tofer said:

I suggest you read your own link in full.

The UK's foreign aid programme has surpassed that of the EU's, including Germany, since our contributions as a percentage of GNI are higher.

On this criteria, more than Germany but less than 3 Nordic countries.

Anyway, It's not so important. UK is one of the largest contributor/GNI and it must be recognised for that.

A post with a disallowed social media video has been removed, along with a reply.

See the forum's policy:

"18) Social Media content is acceptable in most social forums. However, in factual areas such as news, current affairs and health topics, it cannot be used unless it is from a credible news media source or government agency, and must include a weblink to the original source."

6 hours ago, 7by7 said:

The WA was certainly signed in good faith by the EU; but Johnson? Well, as we all know he has shown himself more than willing to break it!

The EU has not yet officially ratified the trade and cooperation agreement as the Commission does not have the power to do so without the approval of the member states and European Parliament. 

From UK agrees more time for EU to ratify post-Brexit pact

However, 

So, although Johnson has shown he will if and when it suits him, how could anyone legally or morally deem the WA to be null and void?

The approval process can take some time... CETA (Canada Europe Trade Agreement) was approved by all parties, and in force under the under provisional authorization in the EU since September 2017.... but it must be ratified by all members in their respective sovereign processes.  (it is ratified now by 16 of the 27). 

On 3/17/2021 at 2:07 PM, Rookiescot said:

Have you included foreign aid from EU institutions? 

Yes. Read the data displayed in the chart of the earlier post on this thread. The Eu lag behind Britain simply on monetary value, not even considering the miniscule percentage of their population and GNI that must represent, which are left blank presumably for that very reason.

On 3/17/2021 at 4:55 PM, candide said:

I know it because the contract precisely describes how the initial €336 million funding must be used. So It's you who missed the point.

The contract also specifies the delivery schedule.

Facts please, not supposition!

On 3/17/2021 at 3:44 PM, 7by7 said:

Indeed, most of them are simply roll overs of previous deals negotiated by the EU which we had when we were members or, like the Japanese one, the crumbs from the EU's table.

Even so, those countries would be fools not to be keeping a wary eye on us, following Johnson's stated willingness to tear up international agreements and treaties whenever it suits him.

Blah, blah, blah, same old churlish nonsense, to deflect from the UK's real achievements, that has already been debated ad nauseam.

7 minutes ago, Tofer said:

to deflect from the UK's real achievements

Are those 'achievements' part of the same zip file that contain ALL the benefits of Brexit?

3 hours ago, Tofer said:

Facts please, not supposition!

It's written in the contract! That's fact!

https://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2021/02/19/1613725900577_AZ_FIRMATO_REPORT.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjWvP_e6bvvAhWP3oUKHRkjBMIQFjADegQICxAC&usg=AOvVaw3oE7Od3uUe81yE75O8OPHj

3 hours ago, Tofer said:

Yes. Read the data displayed in the chart of the earlier post on this thread. The Eu lag behind Britain simply on monetary value, not even considering the miniscule percentage of their population and GNI that must represent, which are left blank presumably for that very reason.

And you would need to include foreign aid from each of the individual countries within the EU.

Getting back to the subject of this topic, much of the problems are caused by the UK deciding to have a very hard brexit.

A ‘Swiss-style’ veterinary agreement would remove much of the red tape for UK food exporters at a stroke

https://www.ft.com/content/0862a631-3f33-4b76-b2be-461bcb6e10f8?shareType=nongift

 

 

As Frost himself told a Policy Exchange meeting this week, the beating heart of his Brexit is a “Magna Carta tradition” in which freeborn Englishmen are instinctively opposed to the notion that “other people set laws we have to live by”.

    In January Brexit moved from the abstract realm to the concrete world of commerce, and this landed hardest with small businesses that trade with Europe, most particularly food exporters that bore the brunt of new red tape.

They discovered that reclaiming sovereignty was not an abstract concept, but could be measured in the 71-page stack of customs forms needed to shift a single load of fish into the EU; or for Scottish salmon farmers, £11m in losses.
 

It goes on to say that a “Swiss-style” veterinary agreement with the EU would, at a stroke, remove almost all the bureaucratic pain being faced by UK food exporters

1 hour ago, tebee said:

Getting back to the subject of this topic, much of the problems are caused by the UK deciding to have a very hard brexit.

A ‘Swiss-style’ veterinary agreement would remove much of the red tape for UK food exporters at a stroke

https://www.ft.com/content/0862a631-3f33-4b76-b2be-461bcb6e10f8?shareType=nongift

 

 

As Frost himself told a Policy Exchange meeting this week, the beating heart of his Brexit is a “Magna Carta tradition” in which freeborn Englishmen are instinctively opposed to the notion that “other people set laws we have to live by”.

    In January Brexit moved from the abstract realm to the concrete world of commerce, and this landed hardest with small businesses that trade with Europe, most particularly food exporters that bore the brunt of new red tape.

They discovered that reclaiming sovereignty was not an abstract concept, but could be measured in the 71-page stack of customs forms needed to shift a single load of fish into the EU; or for Scottish salmon farmers, £11m in losses.
 

It goes on to say that a “Swiss-style” veterinary agreement with the EU would, at a stroke, remove almost all the bureaucratic pain being faced by UK food exporters

Have to be careful about using Switzerland as an example as they have more than 100 such agreements - which pretty much cover most if not all as if they were a member of the EU but Swiss being Swiss have an aversion to actually being a member in name.   Effectively they are in the EFTA - which means they in the Common Market and in Switzerland's case in Schengen but have no say in the EU - but implement the laws of the EU in their own laws.   It is more logical to actually be in the EU and have a say, than being in the EFTA ... but it exists for countries that are not joiners but want all the benefits and willing to accept all the responsibilities...  As such a veterinary agreement as a stand-alone agreement may not be an option for the UK since they only want the benefits without the responsibilities. 

7 hours ago, tebee said:

Getting back to the subject of this topic, much of the problems are caused by the UK deciding to have a very hard brexit.

A ‘Swiss-style’ veterinary agreement would remove much of the red tape for UK food exporters at a stroke

https://www.ft.com/content/0862a631-3f33-4b76-b2be-461bcb6e10f8?shareType=nongift

 

 

As Frost himself told a Policy Exchange meeting this week, the beating heart of his Brexit is a “Magna Carta tradition” in which freeborn Englishmen are instinctively opposed to the notion that “other people set laws we have to live by”.

    In January Brexit moved from the abstract realm to the concrete world of commerce, and this landed hardest with small businesses that trade with Europe, most particularly food exporters that bore the brunt of new red tape.

They discovered that reclaiming sovereignty was not an abstract concept, but could be measured in the 71-page stack of customs forms needed to shift a single load of fish into the EU; or for Scottish salmon farmers, £11m in losses.
 

It goes on to say that a “Swiss-style” veterinary agreement with the EU would, at a stroke, remove almost all the bureaucratic pain being faced by UK food exporters

 

As Frost himself told a Policy Exchange meeting this week, the beating heart of his Brexit is a “Magna Carta tradition” in which freeborn Englishmen are instinctively opposed to the notion that “other people set laws we have to live by”.

Good grief.

1) Brexit and the shift to the far right, to neutralise UKIP

2) Restructuring the BBC to give them editorial control, amongst other things

3) Attacks on the Judiciary

4) Attacks on the Civil Service

5) Attacks on the Constitution

6) Culture wars

7) Attacks on teachers and education

8) US-style voter suppressions

9) Clamp-down on legitimate protests

You can see from this list why some people think Johnson is the best peacetime PM the UK has ever has.

21 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

And you would need to include foreign aid from each of the individual countries within the EU.

No, it was referenced as "the EU Institution"

12 hours ago, tebee said:

In January Brexit moved from the abstract realm to the concrete world of commerce, and this landed hardest with small businesses that trade with Europe, most particularly food exporters that bore the brunt of new red tape.

They discovered that reclaiming sovereignty was not an abstract concept, but could be measured in the 71-page stack of customs forms needed to shift a single load of fish into the EU; or for Scottish salmon farmers, £11m in losses.

I see the 'red tape' as the EU's way of punishing the UK for leaving.

1 hour ago, Surelynot said:

1) Brexit and the shift to the far right, to neutralise UKIP

2) Restructuring the BBC to give them editorial control, amongst other things

3) Attacks on the Judiciary

4) Attacks on the Civil Service

5) Attacks on the Constitution

6) Culture wars

7) Attacks on teachers and education

???? US-style voter suppressions

9) Clamp-down on legitimate protests

You can see from this list why some people think Johnson is the best peacetime PM the UK has ever has.

Which ever way you care to look at it Johnson is a lot more popular than Starmer, the Trosky Labour Party are a spent force and rejoice at the fact we have a man worthy of the position he holds. So as much as the left doesn't believe in democracy, these are the facts I'm afraid.

And this is from the lefties bible:

"The prime minister’s net approval rating of 7 is his best since last May and, at two points higher than Starmer’s net rating of 5, it is also the first time his ratings have been above the Labour leader’s since then. Johnson has also established a clear lead when voters are asked who would make the best prime minister, with 37% opting for him and 25% choosing Starmer."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/14/boris-johnson-is-voters-clear-choice-for-pm-in-new-poll