Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

declanflynn

Donald Trump wrote: »

Anyone know what the status is for British fishermen in other EU waters?


I am sure that there were some that fished in EU waters. Are they all losing out 100%? UK loses 100% of it's access to EU waters and in return gives allows the EU to retain 66% of the access to the UK waters?


All that is going to happen is that Dutch or Spanish companies will buy and build up fleets operating out of the UK anyway.

Almost 75% of the UK fishing fleet are owned by operators from other European countries it's a process called 'quota hopping'
The UK's fleet is tiny compared with the fleets of countries like Spain and the Netherlands

Donald Trump

declanflynn wrote: »

Almost 75% of the UK fishing fleet are owned by operators from other European countries it's a process called 'quota hopping'
The UK's fleet is tiny compared with the fleets of countries like Spain and the Netherlands

So they are going to concede other matters and lose all the access that they might have had to EU waters in order that they can have nominal control of 33% of the catches in their own water ... when in fact it will really only amount to about 8% of what is fished overall in those waters that is caught by UK fishermen?




Some snake oil salesmen those UK politicians!

declanflynn

Donald Trump wrote: »

So they are going to concede other matters and lose all the access that they might have had to EU waters in order that they can have nominal control of 33% of the catches in their own water ... when in fact it will really only amount to about 8% of what is fished overall in those waters that is caught by UK fishermen?




Some snake oil salesmen those UK politicians!

Yeah, fishing is worth less than 1% of what financial services are worth to the uk, the EU played a blinder here by making out that fishing was a key concern for them, the uk fell hook line and sinker for it

A trout is a moment of beauty known only by those who seek it

declanflynn

Aegir wrote: »

is it? the EU wanted no changes to the fishing rules.

Ye need to get Sir Philip Green on the job

Seth Brundle

With regard to the reports that British people will be restricted in terms of how long they can spend within the EU, these obviously must be incorrect given Michael Gove's previous remarks ...

https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1278665768398454785

rock22

declanflynn wrote: »

Yeah, fishing is worth less than 1% of what financial services are worth to the uk, the EU played a blinder here by making out that fishing was a key concern for them, the uk fell hook line and sinker for it

A trout is a moment of beauty known only by those who seek it

Fishing rights were a major point of discussion coming up to the Brexit referendum. Do you not remember Geldof confronting fishing men on the Thames?
It was the UK not EU that raised the issue of fishing.
But i agree with you, it is of little economic benefit to UK, more about taking back sovereignty , which is what Brexit has always been about .

Leroy42

It was still quite a small matter during the campaign. It really only became a big issue when the other promises that were made were shown to be nonsense. Easiest trade deal in history etc.

So the government needed a 'thing' onto which they could hang everything, and fishing was perfect as they actually do hold all the cards, if one looks at it as an isolated issue. The problem of course is that it isn't isolated, and by bigging it up to the importance they did, the UK created a red line where really none needed to exist.

The EU then saw it as a potential 'compromise' that they could give to the UK, allowing the UK a won, making it easier to get what they really wanted.

If fishing was so important, why didn't the EU included it in the first phase like Financial Obligations, Citizens rights and NI border?

A deal will only be scuppered due to fishing rights because the UK have started to belive the lie they told themselves, that Brexit really meant control of the waters.

Peregrinus

Seth Brundle wrote: »

With regard to the reports that British people will be restricted in terms of how long they can spend within the EU, these obviously must be incorrect given Michael Gove's previous remarks ...

https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1278665768398454785

Two different things are being conflated here. Gove's comments were about the rights of UK citizens residing in EU member states. However the latest fuss is about the position of UK citizens who reside in the UK, but wish to make prolonged visits to EU member states because they have second homes there (or family members there, or whatever). It's the latter class who will lose the right to spend more than 90 days/year in EU countries without obtaining a visa. UK citiizens who have established residence in EU countries (by 31 December 2020) will continue to have the rights they currently have.

There is a world of pain hurtling towards a lot of people next year when they realise they should have sorted out their legal status.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a world of pain hurtling towards a lot of people next year when they realise they should have sorted out their legal status.

What amazes me is how amazed some British people are that leaving the EU means, well, leaving the EU and all that means.

Kermit.de.frog

No matter what you think of Brexit it is a simple statement of fact the UK was able to be the first to approve a vaccine today due to it's not being part of the EU 27.

Looks like we may have to wait until January for approval of the same vaccine.

ancapailldorcha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No matter what you think of Brexit it is a simple statement of fact the UK was able to be the first to approve a vaccine today due to it's not being part of the EU 27.

Looks like we may have to wait until January for approval of the same vaccine.

What evidence do you have for this?

ancapailldorcha

Wibbs wrote: »

What amazes me is how amazed some British people are that leaving the EU means, well, leaving the EU and all that means.

I don't know. The original referendum was in 1975. Since then the Yes side disbanded while the No side spent the next four decades spreading lies, false news and spin.

According to Tony Connelly, they found that Irish people who'd spent decades in the UK had the same mindset as the Brexiters while those who'd moved there only a few years ago tended to vote Remain.

They've been told that the EU is the cause of all of the UK's ills instead of voting for the same corrupt parties over and over again using a broken, undemocratic system. The only way they'll learn is to leave, sadly.

VinLieger

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What evidence do you have for this?

The EMA arent meeting till mid to late December to discuss approvals for everyone whose applied so far so we wont have approval till then so its probably gonna be January at the earliest, however i don't think its neccessarily a bad thing as it gives our vaccine roll out planning more time and we can watch exactly what the UK manage to **** up and not do that.


Also the more rushed this is the less confidence people will have.

ancapailldorcha

VinLieger wrote: »

The EMA arent meeting till mid to late December to discuss approvals for everyone whose applied so far so we wont have approval till then so its probably gonna be January at the earliest, however i don't think its neccessarily a bad thing as it gives our vaccine roll out planning more time and we can watch exactly what the UK manage to **** up and not do that.


Also the more rushed this is the less confidence people will have.

Right but countries can still approve medicines for themselves. Otherwise the MHRA wouldn't exist.

VinLieger

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Right but countries can still approve medicines for themselves. Otherwise the MHRA wouldn't exist.

Yeah but the EU is the one buying our vaccines afaik

timetogo1

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1334091648951857152

He's paraphrasing the CEO of the MHRA who they asked for their clip.

ohnonotgmail

VinLieger wrote: »

Yeah but the EU is the one buying our vaccines afaik

that is something we agreed to. there was nothing to stop us going alone and approving a vaccine ourselves and buying it directly. To say that the UK could approve a vaccine earlier because they are not in the EU is nonsense

lawred2

VinLieger wrote: »

Yeah but the EU is the one buying our vaccines afaik

might actually benefit from bulk purchasing... rather than the usual craic where the HSE pay way over the odds

Padre_Pio

lawred2 wrote: »

might actually benefit from bulk purchasing... rather than the usual craic where the HSE pay way over the odds

Rather when it comes to Pfizer or whoever allocating stock, they'll probably fulfil the largest EU orders first, then focus on the smaller order.

We might get our allocations quicker than putting in a separate order. Who knows, we'll see how quickly they can roll out vaccinations in the UK vs European countries.

My guess is they'll make a balls of it.

Peregrinus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Right but countries can still approve medicines for themselves. Otherwise the MHRA wouldn't exist.

It's a nitpicky kind of thing, but within the EU (and for these purposes, the UK is effectively still within the EU) -

- the EMA, and only the EMA, can licence biotechnological products for medical use; but

- national medicines regulators (of which the UK's MHRA is one) may approve unlicensed products for use in response to the spread of pathogens.

This is what has happened; the MHRA has approved (not "licensed") the Pfizer vaccine for use in the UK in response to the spread of coronavirus.

There are various technical regulatory consequences from the fact that the vaccine is approved, rather than licensed. These will affect the importers and distributors but they're not so important from the point of view of a patient.

The MHRA's power to approve the vaccine is set out in Art 5(2) of the Medicines Directive (2001/83), so it's not correct to say that they could only do this because of Brexit. Any EU member state could do it.

But it's undoubtedly true to say that the UK is the first to do it. The MHRA deserves credit for that. It's par for the course for politicians to try to claim credit for successes, in this case by ascribing the success to a policy favoured by the politicians but in fact unrelated to the success. This particular success is in fact down to the skill, diligence and resources of the MHRA, which is a seriously impressive organisation. Quite simply, they obtained the data and advice they needed, and processed and evaluated it more rapidly, than other national medicines regulators have been able to do. They did this not because of Brexit, which so far hasn't affected the legal and regulatory regime in which they operate in any way at all, but because they are seriously good at their job. Brexiters may have had enough of experts, but the UK public owe this particular acheivement not to the Brexiters, but to the experts.

But one final word; early approval is good, but not really the most important thing. Other approvals from other EU member states are likely to follow fairly quickly. What really matters is not which country issues the first approval, but which country is best at organising and delivering a rapid and comprehensive vaccination programme. Approval of the vaccine provides no protection at all from Coronavirus; it's administration of the vaccine that does that.

Again, for this the UK will be in the hands of experts - in this case the experts of the NHS rather than the MHRA. The NHS has been depleted by ten years of austerity, but it's still a seriously high-quality organisation. Provided the Tories don't stuff this up by privatising the vaccination programme and contracting it out to (a) Serco, or (b) some party donor who deals in rubber goods and things for the weekend and who bumps into the Minister at their mutual golf club, the UK can reasonably hope that it might find it has another success on its hands here.

Kermit.de.frog

Guardian reporting that over 40% of UK food firms are planning to cut supplies to NI.

Meanwhile...

https://twitter.com/JP_Biz/status/1334513252924055553

If you are a unionist and you support the DUP you must be thinking what have you done?

If you take everything together with the customs border in the Irish Sea and it's consequences this is the biggest push on a United Ireland since partition we are witnessing.

ancapailldorcha

Let them eat sovereignty.

ohnonotgmail

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Guardian reporting that over 40% of UK food firms are planning to cut supplies to NI.

Meanwhile...

https://twitter.com/JP_Biz/status/1334513252924055553

If you are a unionist and you support the DUP you must be thinking what have you done?

If you take everything together with the customs border in the Irish Sea and it's consequences this is the biggest push on a United Ireland since partition we are witnessing.

They will just blame the EU for punishing them. Accepting responsibility for poor decisions is not really their thing.

statesaver

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If you take everything together with the customs border in the Irish Sea and it's consequences this is the biggest push on a United Ireland since partition we are witnessing.

Oh God I hope not.

Peregrinus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If you are a unionist and you support the DUP you must be thinking what have you done?

If you take everything together with the customs border in the Irish Sea and it's consequences this is the biggest push on a United Ireland since partition we are witnessing.

Ironic, really, that the DUP did more to advance the cause of Irish unity in three years than the Provos managed in thirty.

Bonniedog

In a world gone mad, possibly the most absurd aspect of the Brexit endgame is that the Shinners are attacking the Brits for not wanting to continue to cede sovereignty over 80% of their fishing waters to an entity which they have decided to leave!

SF full on doffing the cap "begging yer pardon yer honour" slaves now. Manage to placate the Brits in the north and the EU throughout the entire island.

Might suit them better to return to old republican policy of wanting to take back our fisheries, rather than this pathetic crawling to Brussels.

deconduo

Does anyone know what happens if you order and pay for something online from the UK before the 31st Dec but it gets delivered in the new year? Would it be liable for duty?

Did a search but couldn't find anything specific on this.

kalych

deconduo wrote: »

Does anyone know what happens if you order and pay for something online from the UK before the 31st Dec but it gets delivered in the new year? Would it be liable for duty?

Did a search but couldn't find anything specific on this.

It depends on when it crosses the border. If it arrives into Ireland after 12am January 1st it will likely be subject to duty being paid on the goods. Unless we manage to get a deal very very last minute.

declanflynn

Bonniedog wrote: »

In a world gone mad, possibly the most absurd aspect of the Brexit endgame is that the Shinners are attacking the Brits for not wanting to continue to cede sovereignty over 80% of their fishing waters to an entity which they have decided to leave!

SF full on doffing the cap "begging yer pardon yer honour" slaves now. Manage to placate the Brits in the north and the EU throughout the entire island.

Might suit them better to return to old republican policy of wanting to take back our fisheries, rather than this pathetic crawling to Brussels.

SF are delighted the way the Brexit mess is unfolding, a United Ireland in sight now, and it was the dup that made it possible