Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: gel Nov 16 2012, 02:11 PM

Anyone intending to buy crockery, that emanates from China, should do so pronto.
"Provisional anti-dumping duties come into effect from midnight tonight, and will up add up to 58.8% to the dockside price of ceramic tabletop items and ovenware arriving in the EU from China. "

Retailers have had 24 hours notice apparently so were unable to stock up.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 16 2012, 03:12 PM

How are we going to cope????

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 16 2012, 03:14 PM

Could always try buying British, an old, outdated concept but it used to work, once.

Posted by: JeffG Nov 16 2012, 03:24 PM

Sounds like a good thing to protect European industries a bit. Everyone complains about the recession, then when some good news comes along, they grumble some more.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 16 2012, 03:31 PM

I'm going to have to get a part time job to cope with the impact on my monthly outgoings at this rate. I probably buy about a tenners worth of ceramics from China about every 6 months or so!!!! Well that could go to over £15 now!!!

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 16 2012, 03:50 PM

I think it is totally unacceptable.

We rip off the idea from the Chinese in the first place ( and it takes decades for Europe to 'learn' the secret of porcelain & then we only get it half right with soft paste ) and now that we still can't get it right we are using trade tariffs to stop them importing the real stuff.

Posted by: Darren Nov 16 2012, 04:37 PM

I had to look up "Anti-dumping duties"

http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageImport_ShowContent&id=HMCE_PROD1_026952&propertyType=document

Posted by: On the edge Nov 16 2012, 04:57 PM

Great slant on this; good post!

Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 16 2012, 05:53 PM

I won't even bore you , kind reader, with a whole page related to the subject.

Greek plate smashing. What are they going to do? Paper plates? Plastic.?

Jim Hacker will sort it out with a Euro Porcelain Plate, that can be stuck together again for further use
when the shimmering bride sues for divorce.
PS all my china is German, from JL.
ce

Posted by: user23 Nov 16 2012, 08:10 PM

Great stuff.

Might save a few European, or even British jobs given we make quite a lot of crockery here.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Nov 16 2012, 08:15 PM

They will probably do as the Japanese did when they thought that E.U. trade barriers would stop the importation of cars and just move or take over companies already here. That way at least we don't lose so many jobs. Which is the most important thing.

Posted by: motormad Nov 16 2012, 10:36 PM

Leave the EU.
Leave the EU..
Leave the.... ah, they 'aint listening to us anyway.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 16 2012, 10:46 PM

Its rather odd - political consensus is either we must come out or we must stay in. No party ever proposes fixing it! Regrettably the way our silent Euro MPs are selected and the amount they are paid means change isn't likely to come from them.

Posted by: motormad Nov 16 2012, 11:20 PM

I do agree. Thing is, self confessed I am not "into" politics like most of the people on here but what I think I do understand is that we pay extortionate amounts of money into a collective "pot" as it were and we don't "benefit" from it.
Greece benefitted from it, it got bailed out. As did other countries where they have 4 hour lunch breaks (perhaps explains in part their financial problems).

Yet in the UK it seems that we pay, as I said, HUGE amounts in. In return we have to, by "EU law" allow members into the country from EU states who wish to immigrate. They then claim benefits (okay not all of them but let's say half). Already adding to the strain of the treasurey they now have to support yet more individuals who are not actually contributing to the economy.

In addition to the laughably massive amounts we pay to the EU we also send billions to Africa and related countries, when frankly, if we had an earth quake I don't see anyone sending money our way... Our own Government sh*tted us over when the floods were around in 2007.

Not only that but there some utterly stupid rules that apply thanks to the EU.

http://revk.www.me.uk/2012/08/how-bloody-stupid-is-eu-law.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/legal-action-against-uk-on-unpaid-european-commission-garlic-bill-7872888.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8816601/Children-to-be-banned-from-blowing-up-balloons-under-EU-safety-rules.html

That's just a few minutes of searching.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 17 2012, 11:37 AM

thank you.

Posted by: user23 Nov 17 2012, 12:00 PM

Did you actually read past the headline of any of the links you posted?

If you read the last one it turns out children aren't to be banned from blowing up balloons, under EU safety rules, they're just asking for a warning to be added to balloons.

Posted by: GMR Nov 17 2012, 12:14 PM

On a series note; has there been many deaths or injuries by blowing up balloons? I've never heard of any such injuries or deaths, but I presume there must be for the European Union to take such action.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 17 2012, 12:58 PM

Children under 8 and an uniflated balloon.......

Posted by: MontyPython Nov 17 2012, 01:58 PM

Yes but

"Happy 6th Birthday Please ask a responsible adult to help blow up this balloon"

does really spoil the effect!

Posted by: JeffG Nov 17 2012, 03:06 PM

Do children really blow up their own balloons? Don't they have staff to do that sort of thing?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 17 2012, 06:37 PM

Mine do.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 18 2012, 12:37 AM

Just answering a couple of points:

Four hour lunch breaks does not mean they don't work an 8 hour day (or more). In hot countries it makes sense to go to work early, come home for lunch and siesta in the hottest part of the day and then return to work until late.


Immigrants from the EU are a nett benefit to the treasury, they pay far more in taxes than they (nowhere near half) collect in benefits.

This levy on Chinese ceramics imports is exactly what most anti-EU folk usually want - a measure to protect British companies and their workers from unfair competition.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2012, 09:29 AM

It shows!

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2012, 09:41 AM

I found this today:

"The analysis found there were 371,000 foreign-born claimants for out-of-work benefits, out of a total 5.5 million recipients. Of these, 258,000 were from outside the European Economic Area. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9026401/370000-migrants-on-the-dole.html

Posted by: blackdog Nov 18 2012, 10:21 AM

So UK citizens are far more likely to be claiming benefit than immigrants. Not that surprising but contradicts the normal scrounging migrants spin.

Approx population of UK 62 million, of whom around 5 million are non EU migrants, 2 million EU migrants.

5.5 of 62 million claiming benefit (national average) - 8.9%
258,000 of 5 million (non EU migrants) - 5.2%
113,000 of 2 million (EU migrants) - 5.6%
5.1 of 55 million (UK nationals) - 9.3%
Migrants reduce the percentage of the population on benefits - while benefiting the UK tax payer by sharing the tax burden.

Posted by: JeffG Nov 18 2012, 10:22 AM

What is the "European Economic Area"? Is it different from the European Union?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 18 2012, 03:15 PM

A couple of good books on how it all works were written by an Oxford graduate some years ago; Charles Lutwidge Dodgson.....

Posted by: JeffG Nov 18 2012, 04:30 PM

Ha ha - most amusing!

Posted by: Berkshirelad Nov 18 2012, 06:25 PM

EEA is the EU plus Norway, Lichtenstein and Iceland.

Whilst not a member of EEA, Switzerland has a similar agreement with the EU

Posted by: motormad Nov 20 2012, 09:47 AM

So let's say on average they receive £125 a week. (which is conservative). Some may recieve the base £51.80 or whatever a week but some are probably on £300 a week too.

£125 * 52 = Yearly income on benefits for 1 person. (x)
x * 371,000 = total cost for the benefits to people who are not even born here.

That equates to 2,411,500,000 - That's basically £2.5 BILLION a year.
An insane amount which if was not being paid, fuel duty for example could be reduced saving everyone money every day.

In addition from the article; "and don't take account of British citizens claiming benefits abroad.." So I'm pretty sure that figure could easily be £3bn.

Posted by: JeffG Nov 20 2012, 10:44 AM

How can British citizens claiming benefit abroad affect the total cost to us?

Posted by: Squelchy Nov 20 2012, 10:53 AM

Have a word with yourself will you? Think on.

Posted by: motormad Nov 20 2012, 11:26 AM

I think it refers to those living abroad who are claiming from our state.
I don't mind people on benefits who have a reason for it but the issue I personally have is where people who have emigrated here claim benefits meant for to help the British born population.

To be honest the whole benefit system needs a re-work IMO.

Posted by: massifheed Nov 20 2012, 12:06 PM

What?

Which benefits are you referring to?

Posted by: motormad Nov 20 2012, 12:11 PM

Many things.

Posted by: massifheed Nov 20 2012, 12:21 PM

So, you don't know which benefits it is that you are referring to, that are only to be given to British-born citizens, but are being claimed by people who are not born in the UK?

Posted by: motormad Nov 20 2012, 12:32 PM

I think you mis understood me.
I'm saying that I don't think benefits should be given to anyone who was not born in the UK. Not that there are specific benefits which are only given to british born people.

Posted by: JeffG Nov 20 2012, 01:32 PM

How can people living abroad claim UK benefits?

Posted by: motormad Nov 20 2012, 01:35 PM

Google it.

Posted by: massifheed Nov 20 2012, 02:56 PM

So someone who, in theory, has been granted UK citizenship, who has lived in this country for many years and has worked all of those years (paying tax and NI), but who finds themselves suddenly made redundant, shouldn't be able to sign on, or receive any kind of benefit in your opinion?

Posted by: massifheed Nov 20 2012, 03:02 PM

You make a compelling argument.

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Nov 20 2012, 03:29 PM

So under your watch, none of these would receive benefits if they ever needed them??

Greg Rusedski
Joanna Lumley
Rudyard Kipling
Cliff Richard
Mike Catt
Richard Curtis
HRH Duke of Edinburgh
J R R Tolkien
Richard E Grant
Joe Strummer
George Orwell
Eddie Izzard
Bradley Wiggins
Emma Watson
Freddie Mercury
John Barnes
Zola Budd

Posted by: On the edge Nov 20 2012, 03:47 PM

Regrettably and this is what causes the contention, we have blurred the distinction between National Insurance and National Assistance. Those who are 'members of the scheme' should receive the benefits, no matter where they may be resident. On the other hand, welfare assistance is simply a dole, in the correct sense of the word, arguably restricted to the domiciled population.

Posted by: motormad Nov 20 2012, 08:03 PM

I do not care for famous people unlike most of the yoots of today. I'm sure the Emma Watson appreciation society might feel differently but yeah.
Frankly they are all rich enough to never have to need benefits.

Posted by: FactFile Nov 20 2012, 08:25 PM

I think you're confusing 'Celebrity' with 'Famous'. Sir Issac Newton is 'famous', Isambard Kingdom Brunel is 'famous' Emily Watson merely a 'celebrity' (at the moment - unless she comes up with a cure for cancer).

But you deflected the question it seems. The question posed was if they needed benefits. e.g if they suddenly had no money. It's at that point you would see to it that Bradley Wiggins got no benefits yes?

Posted by: motormad Nov 20 2012, 08:40 PM

That's a hypothetical question like your best mate saying "if I was a girl would we be dating?"

I'm sure at your weekly railway meetings where you drop apples on your heads, they would be appreciative for the support.
I've always wanted for a level playing field. EG you can never claim more in benefits than you've paid in tax. That way no single person would have a negative value to the country (easiest way to explain it).

So yes if Bradley Wiggins, whatever he is or whoever he does earnt £1000 then he could claim £1000 in benefits.
But I do not want a bunch of immigrants coming over and then claiming benefits for them and their 18 kids.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Nov 20 2012, 10:02 PM

Er, I can't see Freddie Mercury claiming somehow...

Posted by: Amelie Nov 20 2012, 10:08 PM

And there we have it.

Methinks you've been flushed out.

Posted by: x2lls Nov 20 2012, 10:33 PM

Which be getting out more than putting in.

Posted by: motormad Nov 21 2012, 09:46 AM

^ true. I should have said "paid £1000 in tax and NI contributions".

Flushed out? I said that before. I don't think immigrants should be able to claim benefits. I'm welcome for anyone of any culture, background or country of origin to make their lives in the UK. All I ask is that they are somewhat skilled (eg working in IT, engineering, Doctor, etc) and speak English enough to be able to communicate with someone of the native tongue - not to a Shakesperian level but a "hi, how are you? thanks" would be nice. EU or outside of the EU..

Is that unreasonable?

Personally I don't think so. If I moved to another country I wouldn't dream of not learning their language. It would be disrespectful not to. I certainly wouldn't dream of claiming benefits from their state.

Posted by: massifheed Nov 21 2012, 09:53 AM

Not by your logic.

Posted by: massifheed Nov 21 2012, 10:00 AM

So we shouldn't accept any people seeking asylum (people who's lives are generally in danger - often as a consequence of UK foreign policy) into the country from anywhere until they have a skilled profession and can speak English? And once they have met your entrance criteria, they will at no point be able to claim benefits of any kind - ever? Quite a utopia you're planning.

Posted by: motormad Nov 21 2012, 10:26 AM

Bit simplistic.

If the UK foreign policy is so oppressive why would people flock here?
It's like saying "oh look, a man with a gun threatening to shoot me... I'm going to go round to his house for dinner.

I would like to see an increase in skilled professions of the immigrant population. There is still unfortunately a lot of unemployment in this country, many of the lower paying jobs, eg supermarkets, "crappy" jobs could and should be filled by British nationals. It's unfortunate and bad that (some) immigrants are willing to work in places where the British man wouldn't. EG Burger King/. Meaning, it's bad on the UK population who refuse to work in such positions.. it's a job at end of t'day.

*edit okay that came out wrong.

Posted by: JeffG Nov 21 2012, 10:31 AM

I can't believe I just read that.

Posted by: Amelie Nov 21 2012, 10:38 AM

No, no, no, what you actually said was:

You did not qualify it at all. Don't try to weasel out of it. There are those on this thread who will know that you've got economic migrants, Immigrants and probably Asylum-Seekers all confused into one.

You probably won't like this, but here is the Tier system that prospective Immigrants must satisfy: http://www.tier12345.co.uk/tier-1-one.php#content

Posted by: Weavers Walk Nov 21 2012, 10:43 AM

I think, as 'Amelie' said, you've been 'flushed out'. We already know where you're coming from. Don't make it worse for yourself.

Posted by: motormad Nov 21 2012, 10:44 AM

Yes, yes, yes. That is what I said and what I said is a valid statement and I am not weaseling out of anything. You beaver.


That is an interesting link, cheers.
But does that apply to outer EU migrants only or does that apply to EU ones too?

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Nov 21 2012, 10:52 AM

These Immigrants you've been sounding off about aren't white then?

Can you still say things like that on a semi-public forum?

Perhaps, if that's your outlook, a B.N.P forum might be more your thing.

Posted by: motormad Nov 21 2012, 10:56 AM

Sorry where did I say that?
FTR I don't support any national party, not least the BNP. I dislike them to the strongest degree. I would have said Lib Dems at the last general election but since they have gone to pot I might as well vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party.

Posted by: massifheed Nov 21 2012, 11:12 AM

It's nothing like that.

You either really don't grasp it, or you're on a wind up. I would assume it's the second one, but the more you post, the more I think it's the first.

Posted by: motormad Nov 21 2012, 11:25 AM

I'm on a wind up.
You got me.
*grasps my chest and collapses*.

Posted by: massifheed Nov 21 2012, 11:32 AM

Yes, easy to say that now that you've posted a number of ignorant remarks that you want to distance yourself from.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 21 2012, 11:33 AM

Why??

Posted by: motormad Nov 21 2012, 11:42 AM

Sarcasm Biker.
Hence the part where I died.
I'm not retracting any comments Massifheed.

Posted by: JeffG Nov 21 2012, 11:50 AM

If you're replying to Rusty Bullet's post, you said it in the bit he quoted.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 21 2012, 02:55 PM

Maybe unwise to introduce the ethnicity, but truth is there is a long established Government policy of immigrants doing ......lower grade jobs. The first from the West Indies were specifically to do those tasks. Hardly surprising a proportion of the population see that as their role, and hard to say it is not true in a number of cases. Otherwise there would be no jobs for unqualified non-Brits, and no Brits unable to find a job......

Posted by: Squelchy Nov 21 2012, 03:45 PM

Don't then.

Posted by: motormad Nov 21 2012, 03:47 PM

I think issues like this need discussing. You can ignore the problem but it doesn't go away. Ignoring what is a major underlying point in the issue is only going to be create ignorance.

It's only taboo if you let it be, by creating a shroud of "wrong" with it, like talking about sex was in the late 90's.

True story.

Posted by: massifheed Nov 21 2012, 04:06 PM

What the **** are you talking about?

Posted by: Penelope Nov 21 2012, 04:07 PM

Sshush, the thought police are listening.

Posted by: Squelchy Nov 21 2012, 04:10 PM

Well, the floor's all yours......tell us what the 'major underlying point' is so that ignorance can be averted.

Posted by: motormad Nov 21 2012, 10:13 PM

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 21 2012, 11:12 PM

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 22 2012, 06:40 AM

I didn't.......... I merely commented on the fact it had happened.....

Posted by: FactFile Nov 22 2012, 11:58 AM

So you thought you'd warn that it may be unwise to do something, and then you go and do it yourself?

Posted by: motormad Nov 22 2012, 01:29 PM

The hypocrisy on this board is appalling.

Posted by: Weavers Walk Nov 22 2012, 01:37 PM

Why don't either of you 'man-up' and grow a pair and tell us exactly what it is that's getting to you?

Posted by: motormad Nov 22 2012, 03:54 PM

I've already said what i personally have a problem with.
People who immigrate to the UK and then claim benefits.

Nothing more, nothing less.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16643677

From that it would seem, As of February 2011, there were 5.5m people receiving working-age benefits. Some 371,000 of those were foreign nationals when they first came to the UK, representing 6.4% of the claimants.

I do not mind immigrants who come over to escape oppression in their home countries but they should not be allowed benefits.. Not unreasonable.

Posted by: Penelope Nov 22 2012, 05:03 PM

Agreed.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 22 2012, 05:09 PM

Even when The West's foreign policies contribute to the reasons people seek asylum here?

Posted by: motormad Nov 22 2012, 05:26 PM

I'm not saying the UK is right in all cases. I think we should stop interfering in things which we don't understand culturally or ethically however at the end of the day if people choose to come to the UK they should be willing to work for it and not expect/hope the government bails them out.

And frankly if they disliked the UK then why do they come here? Why don't they bugger off to France instead.

Posted by: Penelope Nov 22 2012, 06:08 PM

Because the French don't want them, and they are tougher than we are about it.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 22 2012, 07:36 PM

You seem to believe that every immigrant in receipt of benefits has migrated here for the sole purpose of sponging off the state.

I wonder how many of the migrants on benefit have worked for decades to the benefit of the UK economy before needing some help in their old age, or following an illness or injury.

Sure, there will be immigrants who are content to live off benefits, even worse there will be some who live off multiple benefit claims - just are there are UK born spongers and crooks. We need migrants to keep the economy going (we don't breed enough children to enable us to do without migration), inevitably there will be some bad apples who the authorities could do a better job of weeding out - but there are also many more who deserve their benefits.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 22 2012, 07:47 PM

No, I commented. In my opinion that mention was ill-advised. I did not think it a good idea. I thought some might latch onto that aspect. I did not warn.

Maybe you suffer split ends?

Posted by: motormad Nov 22 2012, 08:06 PM

That's not what I said is it? I didn't say people only emmigrate to the UK for benefits. But like I said, why not pick a better country? If ours is so oppressive. I said I don't think people who come over here should be allowed to claim benefits. Not that people only ever do.

My point still stands.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 22 2012, 08:08 PM

What do you think should happen?

Posted by: motormad Nov 22 2012, 09:55 PM

I feel like I'm having to repeat myself here; almost like talking to my mother. In one ear, out t'other.

As I said (and have always said) - if you immigrate into the UK you should not be allowed to claim benefits from the UK. You should work to earn your money.

In an ideal world; you would be able to claim up to what you have paid in tax. And this should stand for everyone, not just immigrants.

EG - A man and woman immigrate into the UK and manages to find a job. Woman stays at home because she's pregnant. He works for 2 years and pays in a tax and NI contribution of, let's say, £4500 over those two years.
Said man loses his job. That man can then claim £4500 in benefits.

However then everything starts to get complicated, eg what if he has children with a woman, are they allowed to claim benefits for that child? Being said, being born in a country doesn't make you a "national".

Which is why it should be kept simple. I do see a need that sometimes people need benefits. I have been on them before, yes. At the time I was a bit of a bum. But I had motivation and eventually turned my life around. However there are too many people who think that it's somehow the governments responsibility to support them financially.
Which is why it's easiest to perhaps allow immigrants a 6 month window to get themselves settled down, where they can claim benefits, and then after that, it stops and they are expected to support themselves by working. I don't think it's right at all that people can come over to live in another country and then claim off it's state.

But I think that too many people (both foreign and domestic) abuse the benefits system in general. And it would be unfair to the minority who genuinley need it to stop it completely.

It needs a total overhaul by someone who's not bound by bureaucratic ties and who also has common sense.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 22 2012, 10:09 PM

OK, so you 'force' some people into the black economy (no pun intended). And those that are enterprising and industrious will take low paid jobs from others and thus increasing the unemployment rate amongst the 'honest hard working Anglo Saxons'. I'm also not sure how single parent immigrants are meant to carry on either.

Posted by: Penelope Nov 22 2012, 11:42 PM

How come that in places like Australia you can only stay if you can prove that you have guaranteed employment, my personal favourite is a benefit bank, you are awarded credits whilst you contribute to the system which provides you with a balance you can draw from.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 22 2012, 11:56 PM

Mine isn't to say that it is right or wrong, but to highlight possible problems with what appears sensible. We have got to this situation with benefits for two reason I can think of. Political figures discontent with the distribution of wealth, and more cynically, to buy votes.

Think of it another way, one person on benefits means another person is in a paid job.