The BBC refers to them as expats in the above article... It's definitely a double standard, they're migrants.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
I meant only (some) British people would refer to them as expats.
We knew there would be teething problems but it's ok, nothing wrong with tinned fish. Remoaners always complaining, glad to be out the EU.
Do I sound like a Brexiter?
Yes.
I was inspired by this comment
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/sainsburys-shoppers-shocked-empty-fresh-4876680
No you haven't quite mastered it, throw in a few insults about various European countries.
Its the Dutch 'Hamming it up'!!! Just a 'pi**-take get over it!
Food is always a good one. I remember the Falklands and Argentine prisoners complaining to the Red Cross that all they got fed by the Brits was Frey Bentos corn beef.
If you start running out of food, I'll send you a Red Cross Parcel - (if it gets through customs).
Yes please Paul; Fish (Cod of course), Chips (the real thing not french fries) and Mushy peas... if Red Cross cannot oblige try 'Just eat'If you leave the EU you can't complain when you are forced to comply with biosecurity regulations that safeguard the EU when crossing the border into the EU.
Who gives a feck about some wrinkly old codgers in Europe. They probably voted for this in great numbers. Let them rot.
perspective. You are looking from one side. They are probably called immigrants from the Spanish perspective.
We usually call most of the immigrants by the country of origin and when you are fecked up in Magaluf and the like, fecking english (in spanish) or hooligans
If I was ever going to emigrate to Spain, the last place in my list would be Magaluf!
actually went there once on a day trip with my parents - 20+ years ago, in November! Every bar was offering a “full English” and playing Only Fools and Horses...
Personally I’d live in Saville or Madrid. Never liked Barcelona.
I don’t know whether leaving the EU is a blessing or a curse for Magaluf type of places..?
Those cockroaches with businesses in Magaluf will always find people for their derranged type of business model. Believe me, brits are not the only ones, spanish included. There are better places than Seville, Madrid or Barcelona. Those are too big of a cities to fully immigrate IMO
The other side of the island is stunning though.
Am glad it’s not just the brits!
potentially in terms of integration. But I currently live in London, have done for a decade, and love the City life - I have no intention of moving into the sticks, in the UK or elsewhere. I know I might be in the minority these days, but honestly, a sleepy city/ town is my idea of hell. For holidays and relaxing, yes, but not to live. Buzz, noise, and events are what I love.
I bet. Cheers
I refer to myself as an immigrant in Italy. It helps me remember it's their rules that apply here. "Ex-pat" is something I'd say about someone who's living abroad for a set period of time and fully intends to permanently return to their home country.
Much more win from Brexit?
City of London’s Plight Laid Bare as Brexit Deal Hopes Fade
(Bloomberg) -- Just over a week in, the City of London is coming to a hardening realization about its post-Brexit future: a financial services accord with the European Union may be too little, too late to protect its dominant position.
Negotiations are set to kick off soon to determine the outlines of regulatory co-operation between the U.K. and EU, after the industry was largely sidelined in the trade deal that marked Britain’s split from the EU on Dec. 31. A March deadline has been set and so far details -- including who will head up the discussions -- are scarce.
The early days of Brexit have laid bare the stakes: London lost 6.3 billion euros ($7.7 billion) in daily stock trades to EU venues on Jan. 4, the first business day after the transition period. The overnight loss added impetus to calls by financial firms and London’s stock exchange to policy makers to ease rules and help the City get a competitive edge over European rivals.
One such move emerged over the weekend, with the U.K. Treasury saying it plans to allow trading in Swiss shares, reversing an EU ban on the activity. London’s ability to offer trading in firms like Nestle SA and Roche Holding AG will help compensate for some of the loss in EU shares. But the stance also deepens the U.K.’s division with the EU, making the bloc less likely to offer market access.
Those talks -- centered around a principle called “equivalence” -- are open-ended, without the deadline that governed the trade deal. Little progress has been made on the majority of areas.
European officials have little incentive to hammer out an agreement while financial hubs from Paris to Amsterdam win business at London’s expense. Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey sounded a downbeat note last week, saying access to the bloc must not hinge on Brussels dictating standards.
While dramatic, the loss of EU shares is unlikely to have a discernible impact yet on the tax generated by the business in the U.K., which was more than 3 billion pounds last year. But it was an immediate warning of the potential costs of Brexit. As a whole, the Square Mile accounted for about 75 billion pounds in tax in 2019, including employment taxes, according to the City of London Corporation.
“EU share trading has gone, it will not return,” said David Howson, president of Cboe Europe, the biggest venue for EU shares in London. The firm has seen nearly 95% of this business move, Howson said on Bloomberg Television on Thursday.
Bankers and asset managers said the week was otherwise largely disruption-free. That was due to years of preparation by firms, some of which involved moving business -- although less than initially feared -- out of the U.K.
Firms like JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. have already shifted scores of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars in assets, while asset managers including Janus Henderson Group Plc and Standard Life Aberdeen Plc are using funds in Luxembourg and Ireland for clients inside the bloc.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/city-london-plight-laid-bare-050000986.html
City of London’s Plight Laid Bare as Brexit Deal Hopes Fade
(Bloomberg) -- Just over a week in, the City of London is coming to a hardening realization about its post-Brexit future: a financial services accord with the European Union may be too little, too late to protect its dominant position.
Negotiations are set to kick off soon to determine the outlines of regulatory co-operation between the U.K. and EU, after the industry was largely sidelined in the trade deal that marked Britain’s split from the EU on Dec. 31. A March deadline has been set and so far details -- including who will head up the discussions -- are scarce.
The early days of Brexit have laid bare the stakes: London lost 6.3 billion euros ($7.7 billion) in daily stock trades to EU venues on Jan. 4, the first business day after the transition period. The overnight loss added impetus to calls by financial firms and London’s stock exchange to policy makers to ease rules and help the City get a competitive edge over European rivals.
One such move emerged over the weekend, with the U.K. Treasury saying it plans to allow trading in Swiss shares, reversing an EU ban on the activity. London’s ability to offer trading in firms like Nestle SA and Roche Holding AG will help compensate for some of the loss in EU shares. But the stance also deepens the U.K.’s division with the EU, making the bloc less likely to offer market access.
Those talks -- centered around a principle called “equivalence” -- are open-ended, without the deadline that governed the trade deal. Little progress has been made on the majority of areas.
European officials have little incentive to hammer out an agreement while financial hubs from Paris to Amsterdam win business at London’s expense. Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey sounded a downbeat note last week, saying access to the bloc must not hinge on Brussels dictating standards.
While dramatic, the loss of EU shares is unlikely to have a discernible impact yet on the tax generated by the business in the U.K., which was more than 3 billion pounds last year. But it was an immediate warning of the potential costs of Brexit. As a whole, the Square Mile accounted for about 75 billion pounds in tax in 2019, including employment taxes, according to the City of London Corporation.
“EU share trading has gone, it will not return,” said David Howson, president of Cboe Europe, the biggest venue for EU shares in London. The firm has seen nearly 95% of this business move, Howson said on Bloomberg Television on Thursday.
Bankers and asset managers said the week was otherwise largely disruption-free. That was due to years of preparation by firms, some of which involved moving business -- although less than initially feared -- out of the U.K.
Firms like JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. have already shifted scores of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars in assets, while asset managers including Janus Henderson Group Plc and Standard Life Aberdeen Plc are using funds in Luxembourg and Ireland for clients inside the bloc.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/city-london-plight-laid-bare-050000986.html
It definitely happens. I have witnessed it at airports and also on the Hungarian border (Hungarians are very thorough on the border, they act quite professionally.)
I have also heard from lorry drivers from outside the EU that they are hiding their food when they need to enter the EU. (They can‘t afford to buy their food within the EU.)
Thanks for the input! It might be that is on the news only then. But if it happens everywhere, is what it is
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Even though you could see it coming a mile away, it's so satisfying to see shit like this.
Must. Not. Take. Pleasure.
I mean obviously a vote to rejoin any time in the next few years would be incredibly damaging and I'd imagine the EU would say no in the short term anyway because of the damage and stress a member state leaving causes. But I wonder if this guy and the eel guy would vote differently now if the vote were to be held again?
I do agree of course to some extent that of course part of this is business getting used to a new reality with very short notice and over time, things will re-calibrate away from how they've been working for decades. But things will obviously greatly change and in most ways, not for the better. IMO anyway.
Has anybody on here pointed out that apparently the reason the UK has the vaccine first is because of Brexit?
That's quite a big win.
Some proper moaning on here.
That's quite a big win.
Some proper moaning on here.
How did we get the vaccine first because of Brexit?
They pointed it out and got promptly talked down because its total codswallop.
The EU would have preferred to have an EU wide approach and has (mostly) succeeded in this but countries are always free to do their own emergency authorisations or deals. Germany for instance have done their own deals with pfizer as they were unhappy with how certain procurements happened and have vaccinated at a far faster rate than either France or the Netherlands.
Who told you that?
Should I play guess the media outlet?
edit: Oh no, its because you believe JRM and Matt Hancock without question. Wow.
I want to point out that there is no reasonable way to compare rates between countries when they don't have the same strategies, in France the strategy has been to focus on care homes and health workers first. So it's not about the vaccine itself but strategic decisions from the health administration.
I've already posted a link to one article.
The UK used a measure that is available to all member states who have the possibility to grant a regional and temporary authorisation. It has nothing to do with Brexit.
Please read the whole article. Read past JRM and Hancock tweets.
"But the idea that Brexit enabled the UK to press ahead and authorise one is not right.
It was actually permitted under EU law, a point made by the head of the UK's medicines regulator on Wednesday."
Do you realise that you’ve posted an article which actually disputes your claim? Did you read it?
Try again. Under EU law, the UK was permitted to act independently to approve the vaccine in an emergency. Other EU nations had the same opportunity. Nothing to do with Brexit.
Don't think I ever said I had accepted anything without question, did I? I said apparently that could be the case.
You seem a bit salty. Everything ok?
I would suggest reading the article properly before posting it as evidence that Brexit helped procure the vaccines more quickly.
But the idea that Brexit enabled the UK to press ahead and authorise one is not right.
It was actually permitted under EU law, a point made by the head of the UK's medicines regulator on Wednesday.
What are EU rules on approving vaccines?
Under European law a vaccine must be authorised by the EMA, but individual countries can use an emergency procedure that allows them to distribute a vaccine for temporary use in their domestic market.
Britain is still subject to those EU rules during the post-Brexit transition period which runs until the end of the year.
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".
It was actually permitted under EU law, a point made by the head of the UK's medicines regulator on Wednesday.
What are EU rules on approving vaccines?
Under European law a vaccine must be authorised by the EMA, but individual countries can use an emergency procedure that allows them to distribute a vaccine for temporary use in their domestic market.
Britain is still subject to those EU rules during the post-Brexit transition period which runs until the end of the year.
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".
I remember thinking this was one of the few times Johnson didn't act like a total buffoon when asked about this and sidestepped the question about it totally.
It wasn't really meant to be a criticism of individual countries, just that in this case the EU have not tried to intervene in any way on how countries vaccinate and they can vaccinate who they want, as quickly as they want.
They wanted an EU wide deal, which happened, though as I said, some countries have still done some extra deals individually. And they wanted approval on a certain date and for countries to start vaccinating at roughly the same time. Both of which the individual countries could, within EU rules and laws, have said no to but for the most part, have not.