That's the whole point of the search feature. What is the point of having hundreds of thousands of documents and not providing a search capability. This is what I did and if that's not what you expect then that's your problem not mine. What a weak comeback sir
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,868
- Likes
- 4,044
You'll need some of this.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/beginners-guide-to-export-controls
You'll also need some of that.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/import-controls
Don't forget to catch up on these too...
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/import-and-export-rules/import-into-eu/index_en.htm
http://exporthelp.europa.eu/thdapp/index.htm
Export Helpdesk
My export
Which tariffs, requirements and trade preferential arrangements apply to my country & product?
Check it here!
Share Export Helpdesk with others:
Share
The European Union is the world's largest single market and the Export Helpdesk is your online portal to access it!
In just a few clicks companies can find the EU tariffs, requirements, preferential arrangements, quotas and statistics relating to imports from trade partner countries.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,868
- Likes
- 4,044
Well if it was your industry and you wanted to trade you'd catch up on the parts as it is relative to you.
i.e. Applicable to you.
But you guys in order to shout out loud quote 12000 regulations applied to milk which isn't the case.
Believe me you'll be doing nothing different but simply replacing one set of regs with another UK based ones.
Where as now if you are trading within the EU, most of these get by passed if manufacturing and production is harmonised.
Once again you are making big capital out of not much. Problem with milk is there is over production. Hence, milk prices forever falling. There aren't sufficient markets for it.
EU is trying to help farmers by centrally trying to control and coordinate. You can try and scrap that and say let every farmer deal with his own troubles.
So I still don't see where these 12000 regulations are to do with milk???
Why should I find it. I've never heard of a British farmer quibling about not knowing how to export milk.
I have heard of them commenting on how they can't find English labourers prepared to do the work that Bulgarians do however.
So who exactly are you defending or trying to impress with this false 12000 number?
Typical. You quote a number with no reference and then tell me to look google with zillion hits.
N1 👍
counter_violent
Legendary member
- Messages
- 12,672
- Likes
- 3,787
Seen some lame comebacks in my time but this is exceptional.
We must comply to all of the above and more already.....so what's your point caller?
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,868
- Likes
- 4,044
Trying to find out about your regulation shout.
Need more info, digging on trying identify what's what? Will do so for my own benefit.
Your 12000+ regulations on milk don't hold water though.
If any of your past facts to go with it's obvious to me you have trouble with statistics and numbers.
counter_violent
Legendary member
- Messages
- 12,672
- Likes
- 3,787
counter_violent
Legendary member
- Messages
- 12,672
- Likes
- 3,787
Found this quote from One Mikhail Gorbachev, former Soviet leader.
😆😆
“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”. Mikhail Gorbachev
😆😆
“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”. Mikhail Gorbachev
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,868
- Likes
- 4,044
It's not personal CV get over your self.
We are talking Brexit remember 🙂
You previous link reporting success of EU clearly showed lack of comprehension imo. Perhaps it's just me. :cheesy:
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,868
- Likes
- 4,044
Yep and just as funny how Russia and China have implemented free market policies to some degree.
Mixed economic models work best. 👍
counter_violent
Legendary member
- Messages
- 12,672
- Likes
- 3,787
Yes it is definitely just you. 😆
The EU is not growing economically...it's dead...this is a fact....nothing to do with whatever opinions I hold....you can search for evidence of this fact everywhere.
Why would we want to be tethered to a corpse?
tar
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,443
- Likes
- 1,314
Something is wrong with your spelling though ...
mike.
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,101
- Likes
- 709
Lets also not forget, Cameron and his conservatives were not voted back in on their ability to govern.
1. There was no opposition, Many people took a dislike to Ed Milliband on a personal level.
Farrage is not intelligent enough nor politically experienced to lead and Clegg is/was the weak duckling.
2. Some clever spin doctor scared the absolute crap out of the electorate by saying that Labour would have to form a coalition with the SNP to gain a majority. Which obviously worked...
So by default, in walks dodgy Dave for another four years.. :whistling
And as for Jeremy Corbin..😆 😆 Should be wearing baggy trousers and a red nose.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,868
- Likes
- 4,044
Shame the same could not be done to save B Leyland.
The long-running debate over the economic benefits of membership remains unresolved
©Jonathan McHugh
Mike Matthews, the gritty managing director of a car parts company that once came close to collapse, has seen at first hand how the EU has tested Britain’s economy by unleashing greater competition.
And yet the experiences of his company, Nifco UK, are the reason why he will be voting Remain in June’s referendum on whether the UK should leave the bloc — a vote in which economic arguments could prove decisive.
His is a story that goes to the heart of the broader history of the UK in Europe and the long, unresolved debate over the economic benefits of membership. In the third part of a series on the implications of Brexit, the Financial Times looks at how the EU has changed the British economy.
A decade ago, Nifco UK was in deep trouble. It had lost control of costs in the highly competitive business to supply British-based car plants that sell across Europe.
Rivals in Germany and elsewhere threatened to devour the company’s market for handles, plastic pipes in car engines and seatbelt covers. Nifco UK badly needed a turnround plan.
More video
The predicament was the same that thousands of British companies have confronted since the UK joined the European bloc in 1973, ending long years of preferential ties with the country’s former colonies.
Greater competition from the continent has proved difficult to adjust to, despite the rewards of access to the biggest market in the world. “We don’t have price increases,” Mr Matthews says, referring to the pressure to stay competitive even when the price of raw materials goes up. “Every year we have to give cost reductions.”
In response, Nifco UK modernised, at its base near Stockton-on-Tees, in one of Britain’s most deprived regions. The group’s Japanese parent invested in personnel, plant and research. Today even the reception desk is automated and gleaming machinery looms over workers on the factory floor. The company has moved ahead of its German competitors, acquiring plants in Germany, Spain and Poland, and supplying 286 car plants worldwide.
To Mr Matthews, access to the EU single market is vital. “If you’re an ambitious business, do you want a 1.6m [car] market or a 18m potential market?” he says. But many other executives complain that EU red tape has stifled entrepreneurialism and held them back.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/202a60c0-cfd8-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377.html#axzz49CY5FEoj
The long-running debate over the economic benefits of membership remains unresolved
©Jonathan McHugh
Mike Matthews, the gritty managing director of a car parts company that once came close to collapse, has seen at first hand how the EU has tested Britain’s economy by unleashing greater competition.
And yet the experiences of his company, Nifco UK, are the reason why he will be voting Remain in June’s referendum on whether the UK should leave the bloc — a vote in which economic arguments could prove decisive.
His is a story that goes to the heart of the broader history of the UK in Europe and the long, unresolved debate over the economic benefits of membership. In the third part of a series on the implications of Brexit, the Financial Times looks at how the EU has changed the British economy.
A decade ago, Nifco UK was in deep trouble. It had lost control of costs in the highly competitive business to supply British-based car plants that sell across Europe.
Rivals in Germany and elsewhere threatened to devour the company’s market for handles, plastic pipes in car engines and seatbelt covers. Nifco UK badly needed a turnround plan.
More video
The predicament was the same that thousands of British companies have confronted since the UK joined the European bloc in 1973, ending long years of preferential ties with the country’s former colonies.
Greater competition from the continent has proved difficult to adjust to, despite the rewards of access to the biggest market in the world. “We don’t have price increases,” Mr Matthews says, referring to the pressure to stay competitive even when the price of raw materials goes up. “Every year we have to give cost reductions.”
In response, Nifco UK modernised, at its base near Stockton-on-Tees, in one of Britain’s most deprived regions. The group’s Japanese parent invested in personnel, plant and research. Today even the reception desk is automated and gleaming machinery looms over workers on the factory floor. The company has moved ahead of its German competitors, acquiring plants in Germany, Spain and Poland, and supplying 286 car plants worldwide.
To Mr Matthews, access to the EU single market is vital. “If you’re an ambitious business, do you want a 1.6m [car] market or a 18m potential market?” he says. But many other executives complain that EU red tape has stifled entrepreneurialism and held them back.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/202a60c0-cfd8-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377.html#axzz49CY5FEoj
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,868
- Likes
- 4,044
For decades, British companies have struggled to respond to competition elsewhere in the EU, with some household names disappearing. British Leyland, the once mighty car manufacturer, and ICI, the industrial conglomerate, are just two of the titans that have collapsed. But those that have survived have often emerged stronger — and with unimpeded access to a vast market of more than 500m people, the most valuable in the world.
Perhaps the biggest issue in the June 23 referendum is the question of whether 43 years in the EU have helped or hurt the British economy.
Many economists contend what matters most is not funds transferred between Brussels and London, or even claims of jobs created or destroyed. Instead, the central issue is how EU membership has changed the shape of the British economy — its competitiveness and openness to other markets — through the impact on thousands of companies such as Nifco.
“Competition forces these guys to improve or exit,” says Professor Nick Bloom of Stanford University, in words that echo Mr Matthews’ experiences. “The single European market increased competition and forced British firms to increase the level of innovation.”
The growth effect
Britain joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1973 as the sick man of Europe. By the late 1960s, France, West Germany and Italy — the three founder members closest in size to the UK — produced more per person than it did and the gap grew larger every year. Between 1958, when the EEC was set up, and Britain’s entry in 1973, gross domestic product per head rose 95 per cent in these three countries compared with only 50 per cent in Britain.
After becoming an EEC member, Britain slowly began to catch up. Gross domestic product per person has grown faster than Italy, Germany and France in the 42 years since. By 2013, Britain became more prosperous than the average of the three other large European economies for the first time since 1965.
Professor Nauro Campos of Brunel University has estimated how Britain would have fared if it had not joined the common market. He and his colleagues found the best approximation to Britain’s pre-1973 economic performance to be a combination of New Zealand and Argentina, which like the UK fell behind the US and continental Europe.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,868
- Likes
- 4,044
Mythbusting: Does the EU cost Britain £55m a day?
Many Eurosceptics rage against the UK’s annual £18bn transfer to the EU. Nigel Farage, leader of the pro-Brexit UK Independence party, has claimed that being in the bloc costs Britain £55m a day — which adds up to more than £20bn a year.
But the UK’s net transfer to the EU falls far short of such claims. A rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984 emphatically reduced the bill from the headline figure. London sent £13bn to Brussels last year. Against that, the UK received £4.5bn from the EU in regional aid and agricultural subsidies, and the private sector received a further £1.4bn direct from the EU budget.
That takes the net cost of membership to about £7bn, less than half a per cent of national income — about £260 a year for each British household.
Another often-quoted figure — the reported £33bn cost of regulation — comes from an impact assessment by Open Europe, a think-tank, of 100 EU rules. But it is based on only one side of the balance sheet.
Even though he does not like many of these regulations, Raoul Ruparel, the think-tank’s co-director, says the benefits of the regulations are “much higher” than the costs and “clearly not all of [the costs] would disappear after Brexit”.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/202a60c0-cfd8-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377.html#axzz49CY5FEoj
Many Eurosceptics rage against the UK’s annual £18bn transfer to the EU. Nigel Farage, leader of the pro-Brexit UK Independence party, has claimed that being in the bloc costs Britain £55m a day — which adds up to more than £20bn a year.
But the UK’s net transfer to the EU falls far short of such claims. A rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984 emphatically reduced the bill from the headline figure. London sent £13bn to Brussels last year. Against that, the UK received £4.5bn from the EU in regional aid and agricultural subsidies, and the private sector received a further £1.4bn direct from the EU budget.
That takes the net cost of membership to about £7bn, less than half a per cent of national income — about £260 a year for each British household.
Another often-quoted figure — the reported £33bn cost of regulation — comes from an impact assessment by Open Europe, a think-tank, of 100 EU rules. But it is based on only one side of the balance sheet.
Even though he does not like many of these regulations, Raoul Ruparel, the think-tank’s co-director, says the benefits of the regulations are “much higher” than the costs and “clearly not all of [the costs] would disappear after Brexit”.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/202a60c0-cfd8-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377.html#axzz49CY5FEoj
counter_violent
Legendary member
- Messages
- 12,672
- Likes
- 3,787
Imagine Cameron's delight and horror when he awoke to the news of his election victory.
Delight that the shackles were off and that Labour had been decimated in the process.
Horror that he would now have to deliver a referendum as requested by the voters.
TBH I'm enjoying the new way of doing politics. It's all about exposing and rubbishing anything to do with government, establishment, crony capitalism, banks, institutions. You name it, it's all fair game now.
Pat494
Legendary member
- Messages
- 14,614
- Likes
- 1,588
Perhaps we ought to declare our interest in the Brexit debate ? This might be a job, sales of a pet widget, holidays abroad etc.
Mine is really neutral as my pension isn't likely to rise either way or my trading get any better.
There is another very large factor looming in the distance. And that is the over capacity of production. Should countries try and boost their companies/ industries or let them go bust ? The world could see trading blocs like the EU in difficulties and draw up the drawbridge on too competitive imports. This triggers action from other blocks into a major trade war.
Mine is really neutral as my pension isn't likely to rise either way or my trading get any better.
There is another very large factor looming in the distance. And that is the over capacity of production. Should countries try and boost their companies/ industries or let them go bust ? The world could see trading blocs like the EU in difficulties and draw up the drawbridge on too competitive imports. This triggers action from other blocks into a major trade war.
I know the UK legislation is deep but the big difference is i can vote in a government that has the ability to change it whereas legislation or law defined by the EU is immutable by anyone other then the idiots who define it. Why would anyone choose to elect a regime of law where they have zero influence in changing it- "Over the past twenty years… there have been 72 occasions in the Council of Ministers where the United Kingdom has opposed a particular measure. Of those 72 occasions, we have been successful precisely 0 times and we have lost 72 times."
To say we are doing nothing by replacing EU regulation with UK regulation is not going to be different is so laughable i might even choke on my tongue. Try changing a policy through democratic means... good luck with that
My point of all the legislation and law isn't to state that is is useless but is in reference to the immutable aspect of it from a democratic standpoint. So you can try call me out by saying i don't have evidence of 12000 legislation's even though you just too lazy to actually read it (so am i but i tried). You can state they are all good for you but there you have for example the UK fishing industry declining across all coastal areas because our effective fishing area has been reduced to 12 miles along with restrictive quotas within that area. Trying to state that its all just propaganda really shows me how naive you really are and living under a rock by the looks of it.
You also mention farmers commenting on how they can't get British workers because they are not prepared to do the work. That's rubbish and you know it. EU workers are happy to live in caravans or 4 to a bedroom while sending money to their home country because they can't get work there. This is the real crux of it. British people would be more than happy to do this work if the pay was reasonable. I have known a few people in my time who told me that they would need to work 18 hour days back home to get the same pay. The fact is you can't live in any comfort off the wages offered by farm work period....
Atilla BIO...
Happy to give up democracy and watch family and friends suffer economic woes in the EU. Loves Turkish Kebabs and can't wait to enjoy one on a street corner nearby. Love voting for a government that cant change a thing in the EU. Enjoys losing the British culture because the UK is full of EU migrants who undercut British salaries. Loves waiting hours and weeks for a DR appointment and hopes and prays every day there is never going to be a need for an operation because he will be dead before an opening arrives. Has a secret crush on Lagarde and hopes to score with her in the summer holidays. Committed to joining the Euro because who gives a crap about the British anyway - when in Rome do as the Romans do. Cannot stand people who don't follow the sheep and find every effort to discredit those who don't see the EU as the savior of the British culture ... VIVA EU
To be continued in a polish bar near you...
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,868
- Likes
- 4,044
😆 OMG - this biography made me laugh long and hard 😆
Cheers forker made my day.
Not quite me but 180 degrees approximately correct.
Re the regulations basically, I'm having trouble understanding the 12000 regulations or believing them to be real.
I'm almost tempted to dig further and call relevant departments asking for the regulations for me to export milk to let's say Italy.
That's all. Really. Let's say it's more for my benefit. 👍
All the best matey. 🙂
Similar threads
