Jump to content

Brexit - Post Match Reaction


Saints Web Definitely Not Official Second Referendum  

185 members have voted

  1. 1. Saints Web Definitely Not Official Second Referendum

    • Leave Before - Leave Now
      43
    • Leave Before - Remain Now
      8
    • Leave Before - Not Bothered Now
      2
    • Remain Before - Remain Now
      101
    • Remain Before - Leave Now
      7
    • Remain Before - Not Bothered Now
      1
    • Not Bothered Before - Leave Now
      3
    • Not Bothered Before - Remain Now
      5
    • I've never been bothered - Why am I on this Thread?
      3
    • No second Ref - 2016 was Definitive and Binding
      12


Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

If there is no deal then EU fishermen in UK waters are acting illegally unless they are licenced. The same applies to UK fishermen currently accessing EU waters. In terms of market access, there is a similar tit-for-tat situation.

We seem to be forgetting or ignoring the fact that more than 80% of the fish caught by UK fishers are caught in UK waters.

That doesn't leave a great deal to be tit-for-tatted about, especially given that most of the remaining 20% will be caught in international / non EU waters...

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

We seem to be forgetting or ignoring the fact that more than 80% of the fish caught by UK fishers are caught in UK waters.

That doesn't leave a great deal to be tit-for-tatted about, especially given that most of the remaining 20% will be caught in international / non EU waters...

Depends on how you define UK fishers. British crewed? British registered ? British owned? British home port ? And that 80% does it include shellfish? Does it include farmed salmon ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Depends on how you define UK fishers. British crewed? British registered ? British owned? British home port ? And that 80% does it include shellfish? Does it include farmed salmon ?

It's not my definition it's the definition of marinedevelopments.blog that I posted the other day.

I believe they defined them as UK fishing vessels, but feel free to discover more...

https://marinedevelopments.blog.gov.uk/2018/09/27/mmo-fisheries-statistics-2017-eez/

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

It's not my definition it's the definition of marinedevelopments.blog that I posted the other day.

I believe they defined them as UK fishing vessels, but feel free to discover more...

https://marinedevelopments.blog.gov.uk/2018/09/27/mmo-fisheries-statistics-2017-eez/

 

 

  • Option (A) landing at least 50% by weight of the vessel’s catch of quota stocks into the UK
  • Option (B) employing a crew of whom at least 50% are normally resident in a UK coastal area
  • Option (C) incurring a significant level of operating expenditure in the UK for goods and services provided in UK coastal areas
  • Option (D) demonstrating an economic link by other means (including combinations of the above) providing sufficient benefit to populations dependent on fisheries and related industries.
Edited by badgerx16
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

We seem to be forgetting or ignoring the fact that more than 80% of the fish caught by UK fishers are caught in UK waters.

That doesn't leave a great deal to be tit-for-tatted about, especially given that most of the remaining 20% will be caught in international / non EU waters...

That 80% of the UK total catch in the report, represents no more than 50% of the total catch in UK waters, and at least 75% of it is exported to the EU. ( 20% of the UK catch in UK waters is shellfish ). As a proportion of catch landings, 60% of UK catch is landed in the UK, 40% in th EU and Norway, which means that a part of that catch in UK waters is actually landed abroad. 14% of the UK total catch is caught in EU waters.

In terms of the boats used, 80% of the UK fleet are classified as small, ( less than 10m length ), and together land no more than 12% of the catch ( by weight ), which is why there would be issues with expecting the UK inshore fleet to take up any catch recovered from EU fishermen - they simply lack the ability or capacity to do so.

 Interestingly for this discussion, the UK actually has a slight trade surplus with the EU in terms of seafood, which adds to the industry's desire for a trade deal that avoids tariffs. ( Overall, the UK has a global trade deficit in seafood, the largest source countries being Iceland and China ).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, buctootim said:

Thats the thing though. The permits currently issued by the Gov agency the Marine Management Organisation are not time limited. Brexit notwithstanding there are no grounds to terminate them if they continue to have some kind tie to Britain (normally some token measure like having the boat UK registered and visiting a UK port once a year. If the government tries to unilaterally end the permits they will potentially be in breach of contract. There will either be a flurry of court cases or the gov will end up paying out millions in compensation   

I have my doubts about what you say about the Marine Management Organisation and the conditions attached to the permits they issue. You say that they are not time limited, but I would be very surprised if there were not caveats applied to their timescale. The MMO has powers to revoke permits under certain circumstances, so maybe under the current situation whereby the MMO was set up effectively to pay lip service to the CFP, now that we will be free of it, I expect that legally our obligations regarding the permits will also alter, and also our ability to alter those terms to our advantage in specifying crew composition, catch landing port, etc.  I wonder whether under those circumstances there will be any legal redress on grounds of breach of contract, as possibly the newly passed Fisheries Act covers the legal aspects of the new reality. Compensation is a different matter, which will need to be assessed by independent arbitration. Independent means not the ECJ, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wes Tender said:

I have my doubts about what you say about the Marine Management Organisation and the conditions attached to the permits they issue. You say that they are not time limited, but I would be very surprised if there were not caveats applied to their timescale. The MMO has powers to revoke permits under certain circumstances, so maybe under the current situation whereby the MMO was set up effectively to pay lip service to the CFP, now that we will be free of it, I expect that legally our obligations regarding the permits will also alter, and also our ability to alter those terms to our advantage in specifying crew composition, catch landing port, etc.  I wonder whether under those circumstances there will be any legal redress on grounds of breach of contract, as possibly the newly passed Fisheries Act covers the legal aspects of the new reality. Compensation is a different matter, which will need to be assessed by independent arbitration. Independent means not the ECJ, of course.

UK quota allocation rules are not changing, so as long as a foreign owned vesssel qualifies by the following conditions for a licence, it will be able to continue;

  • landing over 50% by weight of their catch  into UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man ports.
  • demonstrating that at least 50% of the total crew man days at sea were accounted for by crew normally resident in UK coastal areas.
  • providing proof that routine expenditure in the UK on goods and services for the vessel was equal to either: i) 50% of the value of quota stocks landed net of crew wages, or ii) 50% of the vessel’s total operating expenditure for the year, net of crew wages.
  • donating quota to the English under-10m fleet equivalent to a value representing 10% of the value of catch landed overseas.
  • any combination of the above methods agreed by the MMO.

Licences are valid for 2 years and renew automatically. Currently no new licences are being issued, as a measure to control the size of the UK inshore fleet, and the Government has not yet worked out how to manage the incorporation of what is currently the EU's catch in UK waters into the UK's catch, and how to allocate it. This is because negotiations regarding post-Brexit fisheries access are, technically, still ongoing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

UK quota allocation rules are not changing, so as long as a foreign owned vesssel qualifies by the following conditions for a licence, it will be able to continue;

  • landing over 50% by weight of their catch  into UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man ports.
  • demonstrating that at least 50% of the total crew man days at sea were accounted for by crew normally resident in UK coastal areas.
  • providing proof that routine expenditure in the UK on goods and services for the vessel was equal to either: i) 50% of the value of quota stocks landed net of crew wages, or ii) 50% of the vessel’s total operating expenditure for the year, net of crew wages.
  • donating quota to the English under-10m fleet equivalent to a value representing 10% of the value of catch landed overseas.
  • any combination of the above methods agreed by the MMO.

Licences are valid for 2 years and renew automatically. Currently no new licences are being issued, as a measure to control the size of the UK inshore fleet, and the Government has not yet worked out how to manage the incorporation of what is currently the EU's catch in UK waters into the UK's catch, and how to allocate it. This is because negotiations regarding post-Brexit fisheries access are, technically, still ongoing.

So those licences are time limited. Those arrangements above were formed under the CFP regime. Presumably now we are free from the CFP, we are at liberty to alter those rules applicable to foreign owned vessels because we have regained control our own coastal waters and its resources. Hopefully in the ongoing discussions with the EU over fisheries, we will only agree to an initial period of readjustment of a maximum 3 years where the EU catch declines marginally if we have to, and then an annual review thereafter. Their talk of ten years agreements tied in to trade talk reviews is idiotic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

So those licences are time limited. Those arrangements above were formed under the CFP regime. Presumably now we are free from the CFP, we are at liberty to alter those rules applicable to foreign owned vessels because we have regained control our own coastal waters and its resources. Hopefully in the ongoing discussions with the EU over fisheries, we will only agree to an initial period of readjustment of a maximum 3 years where the EU catch declines marginally if we have to, and then an annual review thereafter. Their talk of ten years agreements tied in to trade talk reviews is idiotic.

Those are the rules effective from Jan 1st 2021, and whilst the licences are technically "time limited", did you miss the mention of "automatically renewed" ?

Edit: one of the options the Government is looking at to improve UK fisheries is to extend the licence to 5 years.

(PS: are you on some sort of bonus for every time you post 'regained control' ? ) 🙂

Edited by badgerx16
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the lying about the benefits of Brexit is still going on, Hancock and Rees-Mogg claiming the reason we got the vaccine first is because of Brexit, ignoring that firstly we are in the transition period so still subject to EU regulations anyway but more importantly that member states can temporarily approve vaccines for domestic use, literally confirmed by our own medicines regulator the MHRA.

Quote

The UK's own medicines regulator, the MHRA, confirmed this in a statement last month.

And its chief executive, Dr June Raine, said on Wednesday that "we have been able to authorise the supply of this vaccine using provisions under European law, which exist until 1 January".

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

I see the lying about the benefits of Brexit is still going on, Hancock and Rees-Mogg claiming the reason we got the vaccine first is because of Brexit, ignoring that firstly we are in the transition period so still subject to EU regulations anyway but more importantly that member states can temporarily approve vaccines for domestic use, literally confirmed by our own medicines regulator the MHRA.

 

That's not strictly what it is saying.  Basically it says that until the end of December any vaccine that is developed in European countries can be licenced by the European Medicine Agency and that authorisation will automatically be valid in the UK.

It also states that the UK has a seperate route for any vaccine it develops / tests by itself, which can be authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and doesn't also need to be certified by the EMA.  I don't believe that authorisation will automatically be accepted by the EMA as they will still undertake their own 'rigorous' process.

Had we not been subject to Brexit there would be no need for my second paragraph as we would be under the jurisdiction of the EMA alone.  So, yes, technically, the reason why we can have the vaccine certified 'more quickly' is because we don't have to wait for the EMA to finish it's process (the UK certifies 'batches' of the vaccine, whilst the EMA certifies the entire process on the understanding that all future batches will be the same), which is a direct result of Brexit.

I don't believe any other member states can approve their own vaccines as they all have to be approved by the EMA first, with individual members approving after that has happened....

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

That's not strictly what it is saying.  Basically it says that until the end of December any vaccine that is developed in European countries can be licenced by the European Medicine Agency and that authorisation will automatically be valid in the UK.

It also states that the UK has a seperate route for any vaccine it develops / tests by itself, which can be authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and doesn't also need to be certified by the EMA.  I don't believe that authorisation will automatically be accepted by the EMA as they will still undertake their own 'rigorous' process.

Had we not been subject to Brexit there would be no need for my second paragraph as we would be under the jurisdiction of the EMA alone.  So, yes, technically, the reason why we can have the vaccine certified 'more quickly' is because we don't have to wait for the EMA to finish it's process (the UK certifies 'batches' of the vaccine, whilst the EMA certifies the entire process on the understanding that all future batches will be the same), which is a direct result of Brexit.

I don't believe any other member states can approve their own vaccines as they all have to be approved by the EMA first, with individual members approving after that has happened....

Hancock had no need to say what he did. It was a pitiful attempt to make a government who haven't covered themselves in glory, to seek a bit of glory, and score some anti EU points whilst doing so.

I'm with Tajj though, what is claimed is disingenuous. Add to that we're staring down the barrel of no deal in a few weeks time when importing anything from Belgium, let alone this, is going to be a nightmare. This stunt gives us a few weeks worth before it gets messy. 

A humble "we're grateful to those who developed it.." would have been more sensible than the "look at us, aren't we clever, we nipped in before you lot..." that he actually delivered.

Amateur conduct, and no wander the grown ups are trying to row back from it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, egg said:

Hancock had no need to say what he did. It was a pitiful attempt to make a government who haven't covered themselves in glory, to seek a bit of glory, and score some anti EU points whilst doing so.

I'm with Tajj though, what is claimed is disingenuous. Add to that we're staring down the barrel of no deal in a few weeks time when importing anything from Belgium, let alone this, is going to be a nightmare. This stunt gives us a few weeks worth before it gets messy. 

A humble "we're grateful to those who developed it.." would have been more sensible than the "look at us, aren't we clever, we nipped in before you lot..." that he actually delivered.

Amateur conduct, and no wander the grown ups are trying to row back from it. 

I agree.  He didn't need to claim that Brexit had a hand in the pace at which the vaccine was approved in the UK, however, there wasn't anything he said that wasn't true, but I guess that's more by luck than judgement as the medicine element of the transition period would have been agreed long before covid became known.

Who knew, politicians like to trumpet things to suit their own agenda. It's shocked me to the core has that revelation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Weston Super Saint said:

I agree.  He didn't need to claim that Brexit had a hand in the pace at which the vaccine was approved in the UK, however, there wasn't anything he said that wasn't true, but I guess that's more by luck than judgement as the medicine element of the transition period would have been agreed long before covid became known.

Who knew, politicians like to trumpet things to suit their own agenda. It's shocked me to the core has that revelation.

Ha!! Ego's are the lifeblood of politicians Weston, but the clever ones know when to reign it in. When your future involves imports from Belgium, but with no trade mechanism in place, the lip zip is needed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, egg said:

Ha!! Ego's are the lifeblood of politicians Weston, but the clever ones know when to reign it in. When your future involves imports from Belgium, but with no trade mechanism in place, the lip zip is needed. 

A trade mechanism WILL be in place though.  You / me and the lady next door may not like trading on WTO terms, but that doesn't mean the mechanism won't exist...

What Hancock said will not affect future imports from Belgium in any shape or form.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

A trade mechanism WILL be in place though.  You / me and the lady next door may not like trading on WTO terms, but that doesn't mean the mechanism won't exist...

What Hancock said will not affect future imports from Belgium in any shape or form.

You know what I meant...a proper trade agreement...border check agreement, especially with time sensitive cargo such as this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, egg said:

You know what I meant...a proper trade agreement...border check agreement, especially with time sensitive cargo such as this.

He knows but as usual prefers to dissemble. The French have been real world testing their new customs software at ports for a year. Ours wont be ready until 10 days before January 1st. The Road Haulage Association are saying no-one knows what they need to do, advice is confusing and contradictory and only 2,000 of the 50,000 truck permits needed have been issued.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, buctootim said:

He knows but as usual prefers to dissemble. The French have been real world testing their new customs software at ports for a year. Ours wont be ready until 10 days before January 1st. The Road Haulage Association are saying no-one knows what they need to do, advice is confusing and contradictory and only 2,000 of the 50,000 truck permits needed have been issued.   

So 9 days before it's needed then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Since when did a new piece of software, especially one created by the government, operate correctly to specification on day 1 ? ( Or even day 10 ).

Lol.

I guess the Village Idiot has never been involved in a software implementation project - you don't need much software to sweep the floor in a cafe.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Lol.

I guess the Village Idiot has never been involved in a software implementation project - you don't need much software to sweep the floor in a cafe.

 

 

Take it up with Timmy, he's the one that said it will be 'ready'.

But then, comprehension has never been your strong point has it...

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

He said it would be "ready", that implies it will be fit for purpose....

A House of Lords committee was told in November that the Customs Declaration Service is "untested, incomplete, unproven, and not ready", and "There's no realistic chance that it's going to be ready for the NI border for January 1st 2021". The committee was also told that most intended users of the system have yet to start training, and that it takes 6 times as long to make a declaration on the new system as compared to the one it is replacing.

 

Also, there is a world of difference between the HMRC declaring that the software is 'ready' and it actually meeting and delivering on all it's specified functions and deliverables. 60% functionality would be an excellent result by Jan 1st, and probably won't be acheived. The best way to break an IT system is to declare it 'ready' and release it to the user base. No amount of testing can account for or imagine the errors that the users can come up with.

Edited by badgerx16
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

A House of Lords committee was told in November that the Customs Declaration Service is "untested, incomplete, unproven, and not ready", and "There's no realistic chance that it's going to be ready for the NI border for January 1st 2021". The committee was also told that most intended users of the system have yet to start training, and that it takes 6 times as long to make a declaration on the new system as compared to the one it is replacing.

 

Also, there is a world of difference between the HMRC declaring that the software is 'ready' and it actually meeting and delivering on all it's specified functions and deliverables. 60% functionality would be an excellent result by Jan 1st, and probably won't be acheived. The best way to break an IT system is to declare it 'ready' and release it to the user base. No amount of testing can account for or imagine the errors that the users can come up with.

Meh, what do they know.

Tell them to take it up with Timmy, he said it will be ready...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

 Meh, what do they know.

Tell them to take it up with Timmy, he said it will be ready...

but you said "that implies it will be fit for purpose."  You seem to want to believe a poster on a football supporters website rather than a House of Lords committee.

Do you ever wonder why people think you are thick? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Meh, what do they know.

The people giving evidence to the committee were the hauliers and the software companies developing the front end systems interfacing to CDS. The IT companies said that HMRC were only reluctantly releasing necessary information for them to design systems around.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

but you said "that implies it will be fit for purpose."  You seem to want to believe a poster on a football supporters website rather than a House of Lords committee.

Do you ever wonder why people think you are thick? 

Lol. Bless, grasping at straws there.

I've never said I believe him, just that he said it, it's really not that hard to grasp even for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Lol. Bless, grasping at straws there.

I've never said I believe him, just that he said it, it's really not that hard to grasp even for you.

Oh I see . You were just trolling.  Who would have believed it of you? 

Not only are you as thick as shit but you are incredibly sad. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess we really are in the closing stages now, like many people I have no idea what the UK and EU are going to agree (if at all).

There is probably just about enough time for some kind of deal, maybe accompanied with a new implementation period to kick the worst effects of regulatory borders down the road while both sides try and recover from Covid.

I am not sure any of our politicians have grasped how much difference being a third country outside the SM and CU will be in terms of customs checks, paperwork, border delays etc. Too late now though, unless there is some epic caving in or fudge agreed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Super_Uwe said:

I am not sure any of our politicians have grasped how much difference being a third country outside the SM and CU will be in terms of customs checks, paperwork, border delays etc. Too late now though, unless there is some epic caving in or fudge agreed.

I expect they think it is going to be similar to trading with our largest export partner, the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Super_Uwe said:

 

I am not sure any of our politicians have grasped how much difference being a third country outside the SM and CU will be in terms of customs checks, paperwork, border delays etc. 

Perhaps they need somebody with your intelligence & superior knowledge to explain it to them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Super_Uwe said:

Well I guess we really are in the closing stages now, like many people I have no idea what the UK and EU are going to agree (if at all).

There is probably just about enough time for some kind of deal, maybe accompanied with a new implementation period to kick the worst effects of regulatory borders down the road while both sides try and recover from Covid.

I am not sure any of our politicians have grasped how much difference being a third country outside the SM and CU will be in terms of customs checks, paperwork, border delays etc. Too late now though, unless there is some epic caving in or fudge agreed.

Just as there are noises being made suggesting that a deal can be arranged today, or if not Monday, up pops Macron leading others to place some totally unacceptable 11th hour new conditions on the deal, much of it to do with fisheries. I don't know whether it is true or not, but I read that when the trade talks commenced originally, the EU position was that the fisheries agreement should extend to a period of 50 years! Then from wanting a status quo situation to what they had under the CFP, to catch a majority of our fish in our waters, they have recently offered to return 15/18 percent of their catch to us. Boris in turn has reduced our demands to 60% from 80%, but it seems that the gap is still too wide for Macron, who doesn't appear to realise that without a deal, the EU will be entitled to claim a big fat zero fish quota from our coastal waters.

It seems that the EU position, led by Macron, is to allow the talks to fail before the 31st December deadline, wait for a short time to pass on WTO terms, and then re-commence them when we come crawling back to them cap in hand, willing to accede to their every whim in order to get a FTA. If ever a cunning plan was doomed to failure, this is it. Macron has badly misjudged the British character. We will not return to the talks unless they beg us too, and on condition that they accede to our red lines, or else we will be entirely happy to have the normal access to their market that any third country does under WTO terms. This situation will almost certainly cause very bad damage to our relationship with the EU, particularly the French. but they and the EU will be the bigger losers.

Regarding your point about customs checks, paperwork, border delays, etc, as they export more to us than we do to them, it follows logically that the impact of those problems will fall more heavily on them, will it not? Have their politicians grasped the implications of that do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

I expect they think it is going to be similar to trading with our largest export partner, the US.

I suppose ignoring the fact that the EU is a single trading bloc helps, ( US=£182m total trade, EU=£615m ). 😉

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

Regarding your point about customs checks, paperwork, border delays, etc, as they export more to us than we do to them, it follows logically that the impact of those problems will fall more heavily on them, will it not? Have their politicians grasped the implications of that do you think?

Everyone in Europe is going to be impacted by it. But that's what is going to happen due to the UK leaving the SM/CU, rejecting the Four Freedoms, etc. We have repeatedly refused to accept any of them and want to go our own way.

It will be interesting to see how many areas of UK-EU trade continue unimpeded over the next 6 months, services in particular (where we have a big surplus with the EU, not that you ever hear about that...)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Super_Uwe said:

Everyone in Europe is going to be impacted by it. But that's what is going to happen due to the UK leaving the SM/CU, rejecting the Four Freedoms, etc. We have repeatedly refused to accept any of them and want to go our own way.

It will be interesting to see how many areas of UK-EU trade continue unimpeded over the next 6 months, services in particular (where we have a big surplus with the EU, not that you ever hear about that...)

 

I'm not sure financial services have to endure border delays to be fair.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Super_Uwe said:

Everyone in Europe is going to be impacted by it. But that's what is going to happen due to the UK leaving the SM/CU, rejecting the Four Freedoms, etc. We have repeatedly refused to accept any of them and want to go our own way.

It will be interesting to see how many areas of UK-EU trade continue unimpeded over the next 6 months, services in particular (where we have a big surplus with the EU, not that you ever hear about that...)

 

Of course we have rejected the SM/CU exactly because of the so-called four freedoms. If we leave without a deal, which after all the shenanigans the EU is trying to pull in these negotiations is my preferred option now, we will just have to wait and see what the implications of that will be. Naturally I'm inclined to think that they will be less serious than the project fear mongers attempt to make out, with under 10% of businesses exporting to the EU. Regarding services, you don't hear much about that because it will do just fine. Again the remoaner agenda attempts to trumpet any little snippet of stories of financiers and banks moving out of London to Frankfurt or Paris. Much of that hasn't come to pass, and there are equally as many instances of traffic going in the other direction from the EU to London, which again the remoaner media are a bit reticent to report.

Thank God that we left when we did, before the Chinese virus bit hard on our economy and the EU's. Can you imagine how much they would have expected us to pay into the EU virus slush fund?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

They aren’t. Not by quite a way.

You think the EU is a country. Bless...

The US is our biggest export market, there is no doubt about that.

I'm not sure how our exports to trading blocks like the EU and NAFTA compare, but my guess is that the  Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), made up of 10 Southeast Asian countries, in addition to South Korea, China, Japan, Australia and New Zealand may well be our biggest export market in the future and last time I looked, none of them were demanding access to our waters or level playing fields. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

You think the EU is a country. Bless...

The US is our biggest export market, there is no doubt about that.

I'm not sure how our exports to trading blocks like the EU and NAFTA compare, but my guess is that the  Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), made up of 10 Southeast Asian countries, in addition to South Korea, China, Japan, Australia and New Zealand may well be our biggest export market in the future and last time I looked, none of them were demanding access to our waters or level playing fields. 

Yep, that makes sense. Shun the massive market 22 miles away and go chasing one on the other side of the planet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Yep, that makes sense. Shun the massive market 22 miles away and go chasing one on the other side of the planet.

It is only the closest part of France that is 22 miles away. Lots of EU produce has to travel much further across the continent, but 22 miles does sound nice and cosy. But I agree that it makes sense to increase our trade with the dynamic newer trade blocs growing around the world, whilst the EU is a declining force in comparison. But of course we are not shunning trade with the EU, that will continue whether we have a FTA with them or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wes Tender said:

It is only the closest part of France that is 22 miles away. Lots of EU produce has to travel much further across the continent, but 22 miles does sound nice and cosy. But I agree that it makes sense to increase our trade with the dynamic newer trade blocs growing around the world, whilst the EU is a declining force in comparison. But of course we are not shunning trade with the EU, that will continue whether we have a FTA with them or not.

I think the confusion in the matter of global trade has been caused by the EU considering itself to be a country, rather than primarily a trading block. Their confusion extends to the power they think they are owed over our laws and fishing waters. Europe has always been the land of tinpot dictators. Jeez, it was only in 1975 that Spain was a fascist dictatorship. Go back a little way to 1940 and  Pétain was granted essentially dictatorial powers over France by the National Assembly, after rolling over to Hitler, while Britain fought tooth and nail. Meanwhile, Ireland and Sweden essentially collaborated with the Nazi's.

No, there are those in this country that can see the EU experiment, with the benefit of a wider historical perspective and can recognise newly jumped up, unelected no-marks for what they are. Unelected. Now is the time for Britain, as it always has, to put these dangerous people back in their boxes. We're the cradle of democracy and law, FFS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

You think the EU is a country. Bless...

The US is our biggest export market, there is no doubt about that.

I'm not sure how our exports to trading blocks like the EU and NAFTA compare, but my guess is that the  Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), made up of 10 Southeast Asian countries, in addition to South Korea, China, Japan, Australia and New Zealand may well be our biggest export market in the future and last time I looked, none of them were demanding access to our waters or level playing fields. 

Don’t even try to patronise me you irritating little doormat. And don’t try to be a smart are’s either. You’re even worse at that.

How about trying to have an adult discussion without the snidely playground comments?

Now it’s my turn to be a smartarse. You said ‘largest trading partner, you didn’t mention ‘country’. 😝

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Don’t even try to patronise me you irritating little doormat. And don’t try to be a smart are’s either. You’re even worse at that.

How about trying to have an adult discussion without the snidely playground comments?

Now it’s my turn to be a smartarse. You said ‘largest trading partner, you didn’t mention ‘country’. 😝

The original quote from Super Uwe that I was replying to, mentioned country, as in:

I am not sure any of our politicians have grasped how much difference being a third country outside the SM and CU will be in terms of customs checks, paperwork, border delays etc. Too late now though, unless there is some epic caving in or fudge agreed.

Then you stuck your ill-informed oar in, with a post which I should have ignored. Now, go and have lie down in a dark room and reflect on your behaviour. Don't worry, I don't need an apology, just the hope that you will learn some respect for your intellectual superiors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

 

No, there are those in this country that can see the EU experiment, with the benefit of a wider historical perspective and can recognise newly jumped up, unelected no-marks for what they are. Unelected. Now is the time for Britain, as it always has, to put these dangerous people back in their boxes. We're the cradle of democracy and law, FFS.

You do realise the Empire has been consigned to history ?

 

And whilst we're at it, how's your pal Trump going on ? Nobel Peace Prize - as Jim Royle would put it, "My arse".

Edited by badgerx16
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Lighthouse changed the title to Brexit - Post Match Reaction

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})