Brexit - was it worth it? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
DeepEnd said:
crankedup said:
What’s gone wrong at the Port of Dover? as of 8th February 2021 traffic flow rates are at 90% with no hold ups. Where has the anticipated severe hold ups disappeared, surely it’s not businesses getting to grips already with the new paperwork chase on exports. Remainers were preying that major disruption was inevitable because we left the EU.
Like all problems, solutions are found.
Would you be happy with a 10% drop in our £300Bn EU exports for the whole year then? Is that a victory?Like all problems, solutions are found.
M.
DeepEnd said:
crankedup said:
What’s gone wrong at the Port of Dover? as of 8th February 2021 traffic flow rates are at 90% with no hold ups. Where has the anticipated severe hold ups disappeared, surely it’s not businesses getting to grips already with the new paperwork chase on exports. Remainers were preying that major disruption was inevitable because we left the EU.
Like all problems, solutions are found.
Would you be happy with a 10% drop in our £300Bn EU exports for the whole year then? Is that a victory?Like all problems, solutions are found.
Take the Global pandemic into consideration I reckon only a 10% drop off is an amazing achievement. Add a dose of brexit and it amounts to the U.K. doing what it does, gets on with it and finds solutions. Yes I would say that it’s a very good example and what happened to those tales of doom and gloom of major traffic delays.
crankedup said:
Certainly not, take a 10% drop off for the whole year, no. We are talking here of a two month period.
Take the Global pandemic into consideration I reckon only a 10% drop off is an amazing achievement. Add a dose of brexit and it amounts to the U.K. doing what it does, gets on with it and finds solutions. Yes I would say that it’s a very good example and what happened to those tales of doom and gloom of major traffic delays.
Key words there are “I reckon”Take the Global pandemic into consideration I reckon only a 10% drop off is an amazing achievement. Add a dose of brexit and it amounts to the U.K. doing what it does, gets on with it and finds solutions. Yes I would say that it’s a very good example and what happened to those tales of doom and gloom of major traffic delays.
Lots more empty trucks than usual, so we can’t say yet what the damage is or what factor cv has/will play.
DeepEnd said:
crankedup said:
Certainly not, take a 10% drop off for the whole year, no. We are talking here of a two month period.
Take the Global pandemic into consideration I reckon only a 10% drop off is an amazing achievement. Add a dose of brexit and it amounts to the U.K. doing what it does, gets on with it and finds solutions. Yes I would say that it’s a very good example and what happened to those tales of doom and gloom of major traffic delays.
Key words there are “I reckon”Take the Global pandemic into consideration I reckon only a 10% drop off is an amazing achievement. Add a dose of brexit and it amounts to the U.K. doing what it does, gets on with it and finds solutions. Yes I would say that it’s a very good example and what happened to those tales of doom and gloom of major traffic delays.
Lots more empty trucks than usual, so we can’t say yet what the damage is or what factor cv has/will play.
‘Lots more empty trucks than usual’ , care to put numbers on it.
crankedup said:
DeepEnd said:
crankedup said:
Certainly not, take a 10% drop off for the whole year, no. We are talking here of a two month period.
Take the Global pandemic into consideration I reckon only a 10% drop off is an amazing achievement. Add a dose of brexit and it amounts to the U.K. doing what it does, gets on with it and finds solutions. Yes I would say that it’s a very good example and what happened to those tales of doom and gloom of major traffic delays.
Key words there are “I reckon”Take the Global pandemic into consideration I reckon only a 10% drop off is an amazing achievement. Add a dose of brexit and it amounts to the U.K. doing what it does, gets on with it and finds solutions. Yes I would say that it’s a very good example and what happened to those tales of doom and gloom of major traffic delays.
Lots more empty trucks than usual, so we can’t say yet what the damage is or what factor cv has/will play.
‘Lots more empty trucks than usual’ , care to put numbers on it.
Current figures are 65% of trucks headed to the continent are empty (data from last week in jan, first week in feb)
M.
992_GT3 said:
Mrr T said:
This has been doing the rounds for ages. What the story misses is that these are not really EU regulations. No one will of heard of the IAIR but the Solvency regulations where proposed by the IAIR and the EU is doing no more than implementing the agreed standards. The UK is a full member of the IAIR and helped agree the regulations. So no there will not be changes.
Mrr T's GoogleFu fails him, his post is spectacularly wrong in almost every area!The IAIR is the International Association of Insolvency Regulators and has absolutely nothing to do with the regulation of insurance companies in the UK, EU or anywhere else.
The regulator for European Insurers is EIOPA, an independent advisory body to the European Commission.
The IAIS (The International Association Insurance Supervisors) is seeking to support the move to a global capital standard over time, but this is very much a path for the future). They don't set rules but coordinate the rule-making authorities across the world and so they had nothing to do with Solvency II. EIOPA is very much part of this initiative.
The Solvency II rules were some 10+ years in the making, came into force in 2016 and were broadly based on existing UK insurance regulation at that time.
Implementation of those regulations is left to local regulators, as this is not considered an EC competence. For this reason, interpretation of the rules can differ in different countries. The UK has been criticised for gold-plating the rules in some areas.
Although the regulations are meant to be based on economic risk, in practice there are a number of fudges in some areas. Also, because it would have caused significant solvency issues for a number of European insurers, the implementation was watered down, such that companies have up to 16 years to be fully compliant with the rules.
Given the different types of insurers in different jurisdictions, and the different types of business written, there is certainly scope to change the rules for UK insurers to make them more applicable, without lowering standards.
There have been a number of consultation papers about what areas the UK regulator will look to change now that it has the power to do so.
Mrr T said:
I was involved a little in the implementation and the UK regulators made a major mess of it.
Absolute nonsense on both accounts. Please explain!Mrr T said:
As for the UK market being seperate that maybe true in a technical sense but most providers are parts of group which operate in many markets. Which is why international standards are needed.
More nonsense. There are no international solvency standards for insurers, although there are some developing accounting standards.Different regions have their own standards but my recognise others - for example, EIOPA recognise Switzerland, Japan and Bermuda as 'equivalent' solvency standards for insurers. However, contrary to some claims, that does not mean that the EU or EIOPA set out the rules by which insurers in those regions are subject to. Their own regulator manages the insurance sector and applies its own rules.
Edited by 992_GT3 on Tuesday 23 February 15:33
The web site is here.
https://www.iaisweb.org/home
The lengthy section titled supervisory material is of interest.
Mrr T said:
992_GT3 said:
Mrr T said:
This has been doing the rounds for ages. What the story misses is that these are not really EU regulations. No one will of heard of the IAIR but the Solvency regulations where proposed by the IAIR and the EU is doing no more than implementing the agreed standards. The UK is a full member of the IAIR and helped agree the regulations. So no there will not be changes.
Mrr T's GoogleFu fails him, his post is spectacularly wrong in almost every area!The IAIR is the International Association of Insolvency Regulators and has absolutely nothing to do with the regulation of insurance companies in the UK, EU or anywhere else.
The regulator for European Insurers is EIOPA, an independent advisory body to the European Commission.
The IAIS (The International Association Insurance Supervisors) is seeking to support the move to a global capital standard over time, but this is very much a path for the future). They don't set rules but coordinate the rule-making authorities across the world and so they had nothing to do with Solvency II. EIOPA is very much part of this initiative.
The Solvency II rules were some 10+ years in the making, came into force in 2016 and were broadly based on existing UK insurance regulation at that time.
Implementation of those regulations is left to local regulators, as this is not considered an EC competence. For this reason, interpretation of the rules can differ in different countries. The UK has been criticised for gold-plating the rules in some areas.
Although the regulations are meant to be based on economic risk, in practice there are a number of fudges in some areas. Also, because it would have caused significant solvency issues for a number of European insurers, the implementation was watered down, such that companies have up to 16 years to be fully compliant with the rules.
Given the different types of insurers in different jurisdictions, and the different types of business written, there is certainly scope to change the rules for UK insurers to make them more applicable, without lowering standards.
There have been a number of consultation papers about what areas the UK regulator will look to change now that it has the power to do so.
Mrr T said:
I was involved a little in the implementation and the UK regulators made a major mess of it.
Absolute nonsense on both accounts. Please explain!Mrr T said:
As for the UK market being seperate that maybe true in a technical sense but most providers are parts of group which operate in many markets. Which is why international standards are needed.
More nonsense. There are no international solvency standards for insurers, although there are some developing accounting standards.Different regions have their own standards but my recognise others - for example, EIOPA recognise Switzerland, Japan and Bermuda as 'equivalent' solvency standards for insurers. However, contrary to some claims, that does not mean that the EU or EIOPA set out the rules by which insurers in those regions are subject to. Their own regulator manages the insurance sector and applies its own rules.
Edited by 992_GT3 on Tuesday 23 February 15:33
The web site is here.
https://www.iaisweb.org/home
The lengthy section titled supervisory material is of interest.
Mrr T said:
992_GT3 said:
Mrr T said:
This has been doing the rounds for ages. What the story misses is that these are not really EU regulations. No one will of heard of the IAIR but the Solvency regulations where proposed by the IAIR and the EU is doing no more than implementing the agreed standards. The UK is a full member of the IAIR and helped agree the regulations. So no there will not be changes.
Mrr T's GoogleFu fails him, his post is spectacularly wrong in almost every area!The IAIR is the International Association of Insolvency Regulators and has absolutely nothing to do with the regulation of insurance companies in the UK, EU or anywhere else.
The regulator for European Insurers is EIOPA, an independent advisory body to the European Commission.
The IAIS (The International Association Insurance Supervisors) is seeking to support the move to a global capital standard over time, but this is very much a path for the future). They don't set rules but coordinate the rule-making authorities across the world and so they had nothing to do with Solvency II. EIOPA is very much part of this initiative.
The Solvency II rules were some 10+ years in the making, came into force in 2016 and were broadly based on existing UK insurance regulation at that time.
Implementation of those regulations is left to local regulators, as this is not considered an EC competence. For this reason, interpretation of the rules can differ in different countries. The UK has been criticised for gold-plating the rules in some areas.
Although the regulations are meant to be based on economic risk, in practice there are a number of fudges in some areas. Also, because it would have caused significant solvency issues for a number of European insurers, the implementation was watered down, such that companies have up to 16 years to be fully compliant with the rules.
Given the different types of insurers in different jurisdictions, and the different types of business written, there is certainly scope to change the rules for UK insurers to make them more applicable, without lowering standards.
There have been a number of consultation papers about what areas the UK regulator will look to change now that it has the power to do so.
Mrr T said:
I was involved a little in the implementation and the UK regulators made a major mess of it.
Absolute nonsense on both accounts. Please explain!Mrr T said:
As for the UK market being seperate that maybe true in a technical sense but most providers are parts of group which operate in many markets. Which is why international standards are needed.
More nonsense. There are no international solvency standards for insurers, although there are some developing accounting standards.Different regions have their own standards but my recognise others - for example, EIOPA recognise Switzerland, Japan and Bermuda as 'equivalent' solvency standards for insurers. However, contrary to some claims, that does not mean that the EU or EIOPA set out the rules by which insurers in those regions are subject to. Their own regulator manages the insurance sector and applies its own rules.
Edited by 992_GT3 on Tuesday 23 February 15:33
The web site is here.
https://www.iaisweb.org/home
The lengthy section titled supervisory material is of interest.
citizensm1th said:
After that little spat I don't think anyone can have any doubt that our porch loving friend is our very own friendly insurance salesman back again for the umpteenth time.
So good you've said it twice?Couple of points though.. Firstly, even if you are correct about this poster being Sidicks, I don't see you criticising the return of the other multiple returnees, - might that be because you agree with what THEY say? You'd not want to look like a hypocrite now would you?
Secondly, It looks like the Porsche fan was correct and MrrT was wrong (again)... so surely that's the salient point? If people post nonsense then they should expect to be corrected, surely?
andymadmak said:
citizensm1th said:
After that little spat I don't think anyone can have any doubt that our porch loving friend is our very own friendly insurance salesman back again for the umpteenth time.
So good you've said it twice?Couple of points though.. Firstly, even if you are correct about this poster being Sidicks, I don't see you criticising the return of the other multiple returnees, - might that be because you agree with what THEY say? You'd not want to look like a hypocrite now would you?
Secondly, It looks like the Porsche fan was correct and MrrT was wrong (again)... so surely that's the salient point? If people post nonsense then they should expect to be corrected, surely?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff