Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
    Jeremy Corbyn wants to become PM in order to stop a non deal Brexit.
    Even for a remainer is it worth it if it means letting a Marxist into number 10?
    Is it the Meatloaf Option; I'd do anything to avoid Brexit but I won't do that.
    Apparently four Tory MPs would support this. I mean WTF?!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
      Fishing right issue has existed longer than what the EU has existed. And currently the main reason why there are European fishermen in UK waters is because the UK out of its own volition has sold the rights granted to it under the CFP to other countries which it never actually had to do. What you are seeing is how the free market so love in the UK works - but that was UK's own decision not one imposed on the UK by the EU.
      The 'rights granted to them by the EU' is rather the whole point. They were British rights given away because the then EEC members greedily demanded the CFP as a price for the UK's (and Irelands) accession.
      Fishing is a hard and dangerous business. If some British fishermen took the short-term option of selling their quotas I won't begrudge them.

      Not quite. The fishermen around the world have proven to be too greedy to manage fisheries in sustainable manner. The main issue however is that given that the fish do not respect the boundaries created by men the changes in the UK practices will reflect on others as well even if they keep fishing within their own waters. This means that if the UK starts reaping the seas clean (as happens in cases where fishermen themselves set 'quotas') there will be response from the EU side (and likely Norwegian & Islandic too).
      Oh come on. Without the daddy EU to manage it for us the UK will make a complete mess of it.
      Fisheries White Paper here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...re-generations

      "While the UK will continue to abide by Common Fisheries Policy rules during the implementation period, from 2020 we will be negotiating access to waters and fishing opportunities as an independent coastal state.

      The white paper sets out a number of methods to explore fairer allocation of fishing opportunities, such as zonal attachment – which is based on distribution of fish stocks, rather than historical data.

      Sitting at the heart of the white paper is the UK government’s commitment to sustainable fisheries, including ending the wasteful discarding of fish and making clear vessels will only be allowed to fish in our waters if they adhere to our high sustainability standards. cont. "

      According to the Norwegians the issue is not quite so easy as what you imagine : https://www.kluge.no/fagforum/brexit...ian-fisheries/

      Yet that and other recovering stocks seem to be result of rather harsh restrictions on fisheries like the CFP: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can...k-fisheries-0/ And even the CFP limits are criticized of being too high (i.e. they should be reduced further). The problem again is that if the agreement does not bind Norway or Island they can act as free riders. CFP is far from perfect though but it is far better than nothing. You should not forget that the fact that Norway and Island do have fisheries agreements with the EU as it is. For example if the Norwegians started reaping the seas clean to create such a fishing Bonanza you seem to imagine that awaits the UK then the Norwegians would need to forget (their access to and) selling their fish to the EU markets (for starters - it wouldn't stop there). The same is very likely to be the outcome with the UK.
      The CFP is better than nothing but it has proven a lot worse at managing fish stocks than Iceland and Norway have.
      They do, of course, have fishing agreements with the EU. And the EU does, of course, attempt to bully them. After all the EU has a good card to play in the agreements in that they also allow Iceland and Norwegian fisherman access to EU i.e. UK waters.
      The UK, once it leaves, and in conjunction with Iceland and Norway will now have the whip hand in negotiations over fishing with the EU. Which is nice.

      BTW the UK no longer has a fishing fleet anywhere near large enough to 'reap the seas clean', even if they wanted to.
      Also AIUI much of what UK fishermen catch is exported and much fish that we eat here is imported.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
        The 'rights granted to them by the EU' is rather the whole point. They were British rights given away because the then EEC members greedily demanded the CFP as a price for the UK's (and Irelands) accession.
        That doesn't really work. Even without the EU there would have been joint fisheries agreement due to the dwindling stocks and/or fishery conflicts/blockades/cod wars etc.. By blaming the EU you are really not understanding the reason behind the agreement in the first place.
        Fishing is a hard and dangerous business. If some British fishermen took the short-term option of selling their quotas I won't begrudge them.
        Then you have no ground to criticize other countries from fishing in the UK waters either.
        Oh come on. Without the daddy EU to manage it for us the UK will make a complete mess of it.
        I didn't say that. What i wrote is that fishermen themselves can not do that. Not the EU fishermen nor the UK fishermen. The lure of the catch (and more income) is just too great. But the price of that is committing to quotas and sustainable fishing which is pretty much the same as following the CFP in the first place.
        Fisheries White Paper here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...re-generations

        "While the UK will continue to abide by Common Fisheries Policy rules during the implementation period, from 2020 we will be negotiating access to waters and fishing opportunities as an independent coastal state.

        The white paper sets out a number of methods to explore fairer allocation of fishing opportunities, such as zonal attachment – which is based on distribution of fish stocks, rather than historical data.

        Sitting at the heart of the white paper is the UK government’s commitment to sustainable fisheries, including ending the wasteful discarding of fish and making clear vessels will only be allowed to fish in our waters if they adhere to our high sustainability standards. cont. "
        Which is essentially the exact same as abiding by the CFP. No change there. That is not something the UK fishermen expect - they want quotas gone. But that is a problem for the UK governments and political parties.
        The CFP is better than nothing but it has proven a lot worse at managing fish stocks than Iceland and Norway have.
        They do, of course, have fishing agreements with the EU. And the EU does, of course, attempt to bully them. After all the EU has a good card to play in the agreements in that they also allow Iceland and Norwegian fisherman access to EU i.e. UK waters.
        The UK, once it leaves, and in conjunction with Iceland and Norway will now have the whip hand in negotiations over fishing with the EU. Which is nice.
        It really won't be nice. The problem for your argument is that the primary market for the fish in question is the EU. Trying to game that will end that access to that market. Which will hurt your own fishermen. For example both Norwegian and Islanding fish trade relies on the EU allowing it to happen in exchange for fishing access. Drop the access, lose the markets, lose the industry. Like i tried to explain to you the UK does not exist in some vacuum. Regardless if it is in the EU or not the actions UK chooses to take will have consequences.
        BTW the UK no longer has a fishing fleet anywhere near large enough to 'reap the seas clean', even if they wanted to. Also AIUI much of what UK fishermen catch is exported and much fish that we eat here is imported.
        Which makes you previous arguments of trying to game the system with Norwegians and Islanders rather unproductive since the EU has made it clear that any market access on that side is conditional to the fishery matters. Which was what i tried to explain with the TANSTAAFL principle.
        It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
          That doesn't really work. Even without the EU there would have been joint fisheries agreement due to the dwindling stocks and/or fishery conflicts/blockades/cod wars etc.. By blaming the EU you are really not understanding the reason behind the agreement in the first place.

          Then you have no ground to criticize other countries from fishing in the UK waters either.

          I didn't say that. What i wrote is that fishermen themselves can not do that. Not the EU fishermen nor the UK fishermen. The lure of the catch (and more income) is just too great. But the price of that is committing to quotas and sustainable fishing which is pretty much the same as following the CFP in the first place.

          Which is essentially the exact same as abiding by the CFP. No change there. That is not something the UK fishermen expect - they want quotas gone. But that is a problem for the UK governments and political parties.

          It really won't be nice. The problem for your argument is that the primary market for the fish in question is the EU. Trying to game that will end that access to that market. Which will hurt your own fishermen. For example both Norwegian and Islanding fish trade relies on the EU allowing it to happen in exchange for fishing access. Drop the access, lose the markets, lose the industry. Like i tried to explain to you the UK does not exist in some vacuum. Regardless if it is in the EU or not the actions UK chooses to take will have consequences.

          Which makes you previous arguments of trying to game the system with Norwegians and Islanders rather unproductive since the EU has made it clear that any market access on that side is conditional to the fishery matters. Which was what i tried to explain with the TANSTAAFL principle.
          Maybe there should be restrictions on fishing in UK waters. Maybe there shouldn’t. But once we leave it will be the UK’s decision not some foreign country’s.
          "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
            That doesn't really work. Even without the EU there would have been joint fisheries agreement due to the dwindling stocks and/or fishery conflicts/blockades/cod wars etc.. By blaming the EU you are really not understanding the reason behind the agreement in the first place.
            You really are quite incredibly dense. The reason for the decline in stocks in UK waters is overfishing by EU fishermen under the rules of the CFP. There is plenty enough fish there for the UK's needs and a profitable export trade.


            I didn't say that. What i wrote is that fishermen themselves can not do that. Not the EU fishermen nor the UK fishermen. The lure of the catch (and more income) is just too great.
            Which is why the Government has a policy. Which I linked.

            But the price of that is committing to quotas and sustainable fishing which is pretty much the same as following the CFP in the first place.


            Once the UK is an independent coastal state again, it will be the UK which sets the quotas - and guess what, it will be overwhelmingly biased to UK fishermen.
            Oh, and since the fish are a UK national resource the UK will look after them far better than the farking EU ever wouid.

            And as an example of the current 'system' the UK's quota of Cod from the Celtic Sea is 7%. The proportion of Cod taken from UK waters in the Celtic Sea is 51%.


            It really won't be nice. The problem for your argument is that the primary market for the fish in question is the EU. Trying to game that will end that access to that market. Which will hurt your own fishermen. For example both Norwegian and Islanding fish trade relies on the EU allowing it to happen in exchange for fishing access. Drop the access, lose the markets, lose the industry. Like i tried to explain to you the UK does not exist in some vacuum. Regardless if it is in the EU or not the actions UK chooses to take will have consequences.
            You do not understand that losing the rich UK fishing grounds means you lose the whip hand in any negotiations on fishing.
            The threat (EU Stronk!) to ban fish imports is an empty one.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Surrey View Post
              Maybe there should be restrictions on fishing in UK waters. Maybe there shouldn’t. But once we leave it will be the UK’s decision not some foreign country’s.
              That it is. As long as every one remembers that in a matter as interconnected as fishing there will be consequences for every action (or indeed for inaction) - they can not be carried out in a vacuum.



              Originally posted by Gooner View Post
              You really are quite incredibly dense. The reason for the decline in stocks in UK waters is overfishing by EU fishermen under the rules of the CFP. There is plenty enough fish there for the UK's needs and a profitable export trade.
              That remains to be seen. It however seems likely that you cannot have both exclusive fishing and profitable export trade - but rather you need to choose one. Besides it was the UK's own choice to sell those quotas so that still would not change anything if the UK keeps selling its fishing rights like it has done so far.
              Once the UK is an independent coastal state again, it will be the UK which sets the quotas - and guess what, it will be overwhelmingly biased to UK fishermen. Oh, and since the fish are a UK national resource the UK will look after them far better than the farking EU ever wouid.
              Problem was never that the UK would have been given quotas unfairly - but that the UK kept selling the quotas it had got to other countries. Nothing in what you have provided makes this impossible - so it seems likely that the UK quotas owner might as well keep selling those rights abroad. The problem with the UK quotas was in the system the UK itself had created for the quotas (which in fact was criticized by the EU) and how the UK itself opted to distribute the quotas.
              You do not understand that losing the rich UK fishing grounds means you lose the whip hand in any negotiations on fishing.
              The threat (EU Stronk!) to ban fish imports is an empty one.
              No, it is not an empty one. Having rich fishing grounds means very little if you have no markets for the fish. Norwegians and Islanders can testify on that. So it is something that determines if fishing is profitable in the UK or not. And it is likely that it won't be banned, just that it won't be as easy or as profitable as it has used to be. So we go back to choosing between exclusive fishing rights and profitable trade. Somewhat ironically the whole issue is likely something that the EU might as ignore since in reality it is rather insignificant matter, however in the EU just like the UK the fishermen have quite a bit more say than what one might expect, and they won't ignore it. I get that you try to see things solely from the UK perspective but you will never be able to achieve anything unless you try to understand how the matter is viewed from the other side.
              It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
                That remains to be seen. It however seems likely that you cannot have both exclusive fishing and profitable export trade - but rather you need to choose one.
                I doubt exclusive fishing in UK waters by the UK would be legal and nor did I argue it.

                Besides it was the UK's own choice to sell those quotas so that still would not change anything if the UK keeps selling its fishing rights like it has done so far.
                I dare say a system where quotas can be bought and sold will remain in some guise. They won't be these bizarre perpetuity quotas that you imagine the UK sold, though

                Problem was never that the UK would have been given quotas unfairly -
                The whole CFP is unfair on the UK. Please provide proof that it somehow fair that the UK can only have a small quota of the fish that is landed in its waters.

                No, it is not an empty one.
                Because you would know!


                You expect fishing to continue in UK waters how the EU likes it or it will ban imports of UK fish?

                No, the EU will just have to accept their reduced quotas whilst retaining tariff free imports on UK fish or risk losing the lot.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                  I dare say a system where quotas can be bought and sold will remain in some guise. They won't be these bizarre perpetuity quotas that you imagine the UK sold, though
                  As far as I'm aware the EU did not require fishing quotas to be tradable. That was UK invention. So as much as you like to blame everything on the matter on the EU the main culprit for both how the quotas are locally distributed as well as how they are sold are your own domestic issues and Brexit doesn't really change them. It may change alongside Brexit but Brexit wouldn't really be needed for it to change.
                  The whole CFP is unfair on the UK. Please provide proof that it somehow fair that the UK can only have a small quota of the fish that is landed in its waters.
                  Pretty much every single fisherman both in the UK as well as elsewhere in the EU has been whining how the CFP is unfair to them in certain explicit way. So the 'unfair' argument doesn't really fly. It has been heard from fishermen all across the EU for quite a few times. Besides it was the UK itself chose to sell (or make tradable) off its quotas - that was something decided by the UK alone.
                  You expect fishing to continue in UK waters how the EU likes it or it will ban imports of UK fish?
                  As it is? No. I actually fully expect it to change. But what I'm trying to underline is that change never happens without pain - and given how that matter affects other countries that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. If some one promised you such things you would have immediately known they had been lying - so why do seem to expect such things to occur to the UK as the result of Brexit? Because some one told you?
                  No, the EU will just have to accept their reduced quotas whilst retaining tariff free imports on UK fish or risk losing the lot.
                  We shall see. However if you imagine the quotas to be significantly reduced then it would be very unlikely. The thing is the EU doesn't really need the UK catch - it is nice but not a vital interest. On the other hand it is of the vital interest for the UK fishing industry to have the market access to the EU. And it might not even be up to the EU as such - the fishermen of coastal countries could effectively (especially with stevedores and/or trade unions) block all transit and prevent any of the UK catch from being traded regardless of what the official EU would decide. So i would be rather surprised if it turned out the way you imagine.
                  It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
                    Pretty much every single fisherman both in the UK as well as elsewhere in the EU has been whining how the CFP is unfair to them in certain explicit way. So the 'unfair' argument doesn't really fly. It has been heard from fishermen all across the EU for quite a few times.
                    So you don't think being able to land only 14% of the Cod fished in UK waters is unfair to UK fishermen?
                    It is never unfair not to be allowed to take someone else's stuff.

                    As it is? No. I actually fully expect it to change. But what I'm trying to underline is that change never happens without pain
                    And the pain will be almost entirely felt by the EU fishermen!

                    Tough on them but they have had it good for 40-odd years so can't complain too much.

                    We shall see. However if you imagine the quotas to be significantly reduced then it would be very unlikely.
                    I expect it to taper, give everyone time to adjust to the new realities.

                    The thing is the EU doesn't really need the UK catch - it is nice but not a vital interest.
                    Sure, Europeans will only be too happy to cut down on their fish intake if it pleases their masters in Brussels

                    On the other hand it is of the vital interest for the UK fishing industry to have the market access to the EU.
                    No it isn't. If the EU decides to be complete arrseholes, UK fishermen will still profit more than they do now, selling to the UK and other markets.
                    Plus fish stocks will recover. A win-win.

                    the fishermen of coastal countries could effectively (especially with stevedores and/or trade unions) block all transit and prevent any of the UK catch from being traded regardless of what the official EU would decide.
                    And drive up the prices? Great.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                      So you don't think being able to land only 14% of the Cod fished in UK waters is unfair to UK fishermen?
                      It is never unfair not to be allowed to take someone else's stuff.
                      Given that the UK itself has been selling its fishing rights? Not really.

                      Besides i have to question the data you are relying on:

                      First - https://twitter.com/remkorteweg/stat...700353?lang=en

                      Second - http://theconversation.com/fact-chec...f-europe-39966 - with underlining fact I'm trying to get through to you: "...even if Britain left the EU we would still need to negotiate quotas which took this into account. There is no guarantee this would ensure any more of the catch."

                      I did saw a claim that cod in English channel might have been fished by around 84 by the non-UK fishermen - which is possible. Then again the English channel is not exclusive UK waters (also French & Belgian) - and add to that how the UK has sold of its quotas. Regardless there is not enough cod in the UK waters for the UK needs - not by a long shot. Which means that the UK fishermen will need to export their catch (since it is likely that the UK appetite won't change all that much) - without market access exemptions that is going to be somewhat tricky.
                      And the pain will be almost entirely felt by the EU fishermen!

                      Tough on them but they have had it good for 40-odd years so can't complain too much.
                      Any such plan would devastate the UK exports to the EU as well and that would severely hurt the UK fishermen and likely drive fair share of them bankrupt. But like you said, they have had it good for 40-odd years so you can't complain too much. It is rather bizarre that you do not realize that these things are related. In the real world you can not operate in a vacuum and ignore every one else.
                      Sure, Europeans will only be too happy to cut down on their fish intake if it pleases their masters in Brussels
                      No. I doubt they would take less - they would just buy it from elsewhere. After all without the exemptions the border barriers would in all likelihood make it easier and cheaper to buy say from Norway.
                      No it isn't. If the EU decides to be complete arrseholes, UK fishermen will still profit more than they do now, selling to the UK and other markets.
                      That is doubtful since the primary external market is much less accessible. And it has nothing to do with being 'annoying' what ever you want to call it. If the UK wants exemptions it needs to give something in return. If it doesn't, well then it doesn't - and will lose the markets. As said take a slightly better look at Norway.
                      And drive up the prices? Great.
                      It would drive up the price of the catch especially from the UK making the UK catch much less interest product and reducing its profitability since due to higher prices it would not be competitive any longer with say the EU's own, Norwegian or Islandic fish.
                      It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                        Actually it doesn't. Just a functioning government would do. The laws are already in place:

                        https://www.un.org/depts/los/convent...UNCLOS-TOC.htm
                        Link directs to a error 404 page, something wrong there

                        I did find this though :
                        On 03 July 2017, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland deposited an Act of Denunciation with the depositary, dated 03 July 2017, which said

                        "In accordance with the provisions of Article 15 of the Convention, I hereby give notice of the denunciation of this Convention by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take effect 2 years from the date of this letter or on the date on which the United Kingdom ceases to be a Member State of the European Union, whichever is the later date.".
                        https://assets.publishing.service.go...64__status.pdf
                        Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

                          Link directs to a error 404 page, something wrong there

                          I did find this though :
                          On 03 July 2017, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland deposited an Act of Denunciation with the depositary, dated 03 July 2017, which said

                          "In accordance with the provisions of Article 15 of the Convention, I hereby give notice of the denunciation of this Convention by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take effect 2 years from the date of this letter or on the date on which the United Kingdom ceases to be a Member State of the European Union, whichever is the later date.".
                          https://assets.publishing.service.go...64__status.pdf
                          That as well. I was talking about UNCLOS. The United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea
                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Law_of_the_Sea

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
                            Second - http://theconversation.com/fact-chec...f-europe-39966 - with underlining fact I'm trying to get through to you: "...even if Britain left the EU we would still need to negotiate quotas which took this into account. There is no guarantee this would ensure any more of the catch."
                            Sure it wouldn't. The UK sets the quotas but it wouldn't give more to its own fishermen.


                            I did saw a claim that cod in English channel might have been fished by around 84 by the non-UK fishermen - which is possible. Then again the English channel is not exclusive UK waters (also French & Belgian) - and add to that how the UK has sold of its quotas. Regardless there is not enough cod in the UK waters for the UK needs - not by a long shot.
                            The UKs quota of cod from the Celtic sea is 7%. 51% of all cod landed from the Celtic sea is in UK waters.
                            PDF downloadable here https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...re-generations

                            The collapse, again, of cod stocks in the North Sea can again be squarely laid at the door of the Common Fisheries Policy.
                            Just as stocks had recovered by 2015 (after the massive decline since the 1970s) the CFP laid quotas (the UK gets just 40%) that were greatly in excess of scientific recommendations.

                            Which means that the UK fishermen will need to export their catch (since it is likely that the UK appetite won't change all that much) - without market access exemptions that is going to be somewhat tricky.

                            Any such plan would devastate the UK exports to the EU as well and that would severely hurt the UK fishermen and likely drive fair share of them bankrupt. But like you said, they have had it good for 40-odd years so you can't complain too much. It is rather bizarre that you do not realize that these things are related. In the real world you can not operate in a vacuum and ignore every one else.
                            It is rather bizarre that you think the EU can deny market access to UK fish.

                            No. I doubt they would take less - they would just buy it from elsewhere. After all without the exemptions the border barriers would in all likelihood make it easier and cheaper to buy say from Norway.
                            Fish are rarely a fungible commodity. Other countries are not going to be able to supply the EU the over 1,000,000 tons of fish taken from UK waters.

                            That is doubtful since the primary external market is much less accessible. And it has nothing to do with being 'annoying' what ever you want to call it. If the UK wants exemptions it needs to give something in return. If it doesn't, well then it doesn't - and will lose the markets. As said take a slightly better look at Norway.
                            Tariff free import of fish caught in EU waters.

                            It would drive up the price of the catch especially from the UK making the UK catch much less interest product and reducing its profitability since due to higher prices it would not be competitive any longer with say the EU's own, Norwegian or Islandic fish.
                            And what is the EU going to threaten Iceland and Norway with, when they are told to faen av/andskoti about the demand to supply a million extra tons of fish?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                              Tariff free import of fish caught in EU waters.
                              Well that's what we have now no ?

                              Typically Belgian boats that go fishing in British waters offload in a British port, fish is transported by British (well Polish or Bulgarian more likely) truck to the continent - as I understand it.

                              Seems to be much to do about nothing to me.....

                              Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

                                Typically Belgian boats that go fishing in British waters offload in a British port, fish is transported by British (well Polish or Bulgarian more likely) truck to the continent - as I understand it.
                                For the Belgium market? That seems a bit odd. Why don't they just land them in a Belgium port?

                                Unless they are getting processed in the UK too?

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X