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

Dyr

declanflynn wrote: »

SF are was a nationalist party whose whose whole raison d'etre is to bring about a United Ireland not who caught whose fish

That day is long gone a mhic.

forgottenhills

forgottenhills wrote: »

On the fishing side of the negotiations the optics as reported everywhere from Dingle to Berlin amounted to the the EU offering the UK only 18% of the UK's own fish (as per internationally accepted agreements around the concept of a 200 mile exclusion zone). This was a poor PR representation of the EU's position and only playing into the hands of hardline Brexiteers. The French came across as particularly demanding/insistent on this area. No other representation of the EU's demands around fishing rights was ever offered by the EU to my knowledge or found media currency.

It seems that the French are the ones who are objecting to the fishing rules and the joint language seems to indicate that the two teams negotiating feel they can reach agreement, but are being prevented from doing so.

It could be that the French are pushing for a no deal Brexit and the Eu is powerless to stop them. I doubt anyone in Poland, Greece or Slovakia gives a rats arse about fishing, but it only takes one country to scupper the whole thing.

This, of course, has the highest impact on Ireland and it could be that the French will cave in if they get something in return, like a concession on unified tax rates.

namloc1980

Fish are a literal red herring in this fiasco.

Donald Trump

Aegir wrote: »

It seems that the French are the ones who are objecting to the fishing rules and the joint language seems to indicate that the two teams negotiating feel they can reach agreement, but are being prevented from doing so.

It could be that the French are pushing for a no deal Brexit and the Eu is powerless to stop them. I doubt anyone in Poland, Greece or Slovakia gives a rats arse about fishing, but it only takes one country to scupper the whole thing.

This, of course, has the highest impact on Ireland and it could be that the French will cave in if they get something in return, like a concession on unified tax rates.

Given that all of this is apparently so obvious now, I wonder whatever happened to the "easiest deal in history"? Especially given that the UK would hold "all the cards".

forgottenhills

Aegir wrote: »

It seems that the French are the ones who are objecting to the fishing rules and the joint language seems to indicate that the two teams negotiating feel they can reach agreement, but are being prevented from doing so.

It could be that the French are pushing for a no deal Brexit and the Eu is powerless to stop them. I doubt anyone in Poland, Greece or Slovakia gives a rats arse about fishing, but it only takes one country to scupper the whole thing.

This, of course, has the highest impact on Ireland and it could be that the French will cave in if they get something in return, like a concession on unified tax rates.

The point I am making in regard to fishing rights relates to the optics. Both sides want an overall deal. Each side can ask for anything from the other side and that request can be refused. The deal outcome is more important than how it is achieved so it is important not to allow emotional issues to develop and to block deals. This has happened over fishing.

So instead of having the optics over fishing become the French asking that the EU retain fishing rights to 82% of the UK's fish it could have been handled more like this:

1. The EU affirm that after Brexit that the UK will have full control over its territorial waters as a sovereign state.
2. The EU note that the UK fishing fleet currently sells 80% of its catch into the EU.
3. So in the interests of both parties the EU proposes that the UK allow continued access to the EU fleet to the UK's fishing grounds for most of its current quotas and in return the EU promises tariff free access for UK fish exports into the EU.

If it had been stated as a win-win like this rather than the bald optics of the EU looking to just let the the UK retain 18% of it own fish then this issue wouldn't have blown up as an emotional issue for the Brexiteers imo.

Donald Trump

forgottenhills wrote: »

The point I am making in regard to fishing rights relates to the optics. Both sides want an overall deal. Each side can ask for anything from the other side and that request can be refused. The deal outcome is more important than how it is achieved so it is important not to allow emotional issues to develop and to block deals. This has happened over fishing.

So instead of having the optics over fishing become the French asking that the EU retain fishing rights to 82% of the UK's fish it could have been handled more like this:

1. The EU affirm that after Brexit that the UK will have full control over its territorial waters as a sovereign state.
2. The EU note that the UK fishing fleet currently sells 80% of its catch into the EU.
3. So in the interests of both parties the EU proposes that the UK allow continued access to the EU fleet to the UK's fishing grounds for most of its current quotas and in return the EU promises tariff free access for UK fish exports into the EU.

If it had been stated as a win-win like this rather than the bald optics of the EU looking to just let the the UK retain 18% of it own fish then this issue wouldn't have blown up as an emotional issue for the Brexiteers imo.

Let's be honest. The "optics" are just caused by the same eejits who would be otherwise shouting about "bendy bananas". That is beyond the control of the EU.



Even what you are saying about the 18% isn't quite correct from what I understood (although open to correction). I understood that the EU wanted to keep the status quo and agreed to pay the UK 18% of the value of what EU fishermen caught.



Are the UK fishermen making more than 18% margins on what they catch?



Buy some big boats, pay expenses and workers etc. Go out and land 100m worth of fish. What "profit" does the UK fisherman make on it does anyone know? Would it be more than 18m?



The mad thing is that fishing rights in the UK are controlled by a very small group of already very wealthy individuals. The country is prepared to destroy itself to increase the wealth of a tiny tiny group of its already wealthy elite (and some foreign companies whose English based subsidiaries hold a large portion of UK quota .... about 24% of England's fishing quota is owned by a UK company whose parent company, i.e. the actual real beneficiaries, is actually a large Dutch multinational :pac: )





And to protect and secure that, the average UK worker is going to have a more difficult life from now on. Maybe no real big changes for most people, but lots of small inconveniences to start getting used to

First Up

Donald Trump wrote: »

Let's be honest. The "optics" are just caused by the same eejits who would be otherwise shouting about "bendy bananas". That is beyond the control of the EU.

Even what you are saying about the 18% isn't quite correct from what I understood (although open to correction). I understood that the EU wanted to keep the status quo and agreed to pay the UK 18% of the value of what EU fishermen caught.

Are the UK fishermen making more than 18% margins on what they catch?

Buy some big boats, pay expenses and workers etc. Go out and land 100m worth of fish. What "profit" does the UK fisherman make on it does anyone know? Would it be more than 18m?

The mad thing is that fishing rights in the UK are controlled by a very small group of already very wealthy individuals. The country is prepared to destroy itself to increase the wealth of a tiny tiny group of its already wealthy elite (and some foreign companies whose English based subsidiaries hold a large portion of UK quota .... about 25% of England's fishing quota is owned by a UK company whose parent company, i.e. the actual real beneficiaries, is actually a large Dutch multinational :pac: )

And to protect and secure that, the average UK worker is going to have a more difficult life from now on. Maybe no real big changes for most people, but lots of small inconveniences to start getting used to

Correct. The UK fishing industry isn't big enough to satisfy its own market's demand. If the (larger and more efficient) EU fishing industry is barred from catching and landing in the UK, there won't be enough fish for sale in UK shops and restaurants.

The UK is making a big deal about fish because it has precious little else to use as a bargaining chip. Some UK and EU politicians are using it as a local/regional issue but in the final analysis, if the UK wins on fish, it will lose on something else. I hope somebody somewhere is doing the sums.

forgottenhills

Donald Trump wrote: »

Let's be honest. The "optics" are just caused by the same eejits who would be otherwise shouting about "bendy bananas". That is beyond the control of the EU.



Even what you are saying about the 18% isn't quite correct from what I understood (although open to correction). I understood that the EU wanted to keep the status quo and agreed to pay the UK 18% of the value of what EU fishermen caught.



Are the UK fishermen making more than 18% margins on what they catch?



Buy some big boats, pay expenses and workers etc. Go out and land 100m worth of fish. What "profit" does the UK fisherman make on it does anyone know? Would it be more than 18m?



The mad thing is that fishing rights in the UK are controlled by a very small group of already very wealthy individuals. The country is prepared to destroy itself to increase the wealth of a tiny tiny group of its already wealthy elite (and some foreign companies whose English based subsidiaries hold a large portion of UK quota .... about 24% of England's fishing quota is owned by a UK company whose parent company, i.e. the actual real beneficiaries, is actually a large Dutch multinational :pac: )

We all know that the economics of the UK's argument make no sense but the EU wants a deal (especially an overall deal) and my point is that the emotions over the fishing area could have been defused by a better presentation of the arguments at the outset. And so that fishing wouldn't get in the way of the much much larger overall deal. It needed a better PR spin from the EU side over fishing earlier in the process. If I were organising events around the EA negotiations I would have organised a meeting between the British PM and Barnier on a trawler to promote a win-win fishing deal. Johnson is unable to say no to a photo opportunity where he gets to wear some outlandish gear.

Nitrogan

First Up wrote: »

Correct. The UK fishing industry isn't big enough to satisfy its own market's demand. If the (larger and more efficient) EU fishing industry is barred from catching and landing in the UK, there won't be enough fish for sale in UK shops and restaurants.

The UK is making a big deal about fish because it has precious little else to use as a bargaining chip. Some UK and EU politicians are using it as a local/regional issue but in the final analysis, if the UK wins on fish, it will lose on something else. I hope somebody somewhere is doing the sums.

Fishing is a symbolic territorial thing and a unique situation where civilian transnational competitors can come into contact and conflict with each other. That kind of thing starts Cod wars.

First Up

Nitrogan wrote:

Fishing is a symbolic territorial thing and a unique situation where civilian transnational competitors can come into contact and conflict with each other. That kind of thing starts Cod wars.

The Cod wars didn't impact much beyond the UK chip shop door. They will feel the effects of this ill-judged gambit a lot more widely than that. (And they still won't have enough fish.)

Junkyard Tom

Aegir wrote: »

This, of course, has the highest impact on Ireland

Only if you completely ignore the impact it will have on ol' Blighty.

and it could be that the French will cave in if they get something in return, like a concession on unified tax rates.

He said gleefully as he imagined Ireland experiencing severe economic pain.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Only if you completely ignore the impact it will have on ol' Blighty.



He said gleefully as he imagined Ireland experiencing severe economic pain.

Anything to add to the discussion, other than snarky comments?

Nitrogan

Nitrogan wrote: »

Fishing is a symbolic territorial thing and a unique situation where civilian transnational competitors can come into contact and conflict with each other. That kind of thing starts Cod wars.

If fishing were the insignificant thing people seem to think it is, you have to ask why the Eu care about it so much.

First Up

Aegir wrote: »

If fishing were the insignificant thing people seem to think it is, you have to ask why the Eu care about it so much.

The EU cares about everything.

Kermit.de.frog

The DUP are a funny lot

First Up

First Up wrote: »

The EU cares about everything.

All praise the Eu.

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336375316260990978

Unionists will soon have to eat Irish sausages by the looks of it...

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

If fishing were the insignificant thing people seem to think it is, you have to ask why the Eu care about it so much.

It isn't about caring as such, that is an emotional term and more closely resembles the UK position. The EU position is that this is something they want in return for giving something back. If the UK want access, to say Erasmus, or Visas or whatever, then what can the EU get in return.

The UK made it a Red line issue, so the EU took the pressure that the Uk would undoubtedly be under to deliver on fish to helo push for better terms in other areas.

Padre_Pio

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336375316260990978

Unionists will soon have to eat Irish sausages by the looks of it...

So British manufacturers will need special labels or packaging specific to NI, and have to separate their delivery chains into British and NI produce? :eek::eek:

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

It isn't about caring as such, that is an emotional term and more closely resembles the UK position. The EU position is that this is something they want in return for giving something back. If the UK want access, to say Erasmus, or Visas or whatever, then what can the EU get in return.

The UK made it a Red line issue, so the EU took the pressure that the Uk would undoubtedly be under to deliver on fish to helo push for better terms in other areas.

So the EU are quite happy for a no deal Brexit because of fish?

How do Slovakia and Austria feel about that?

Kermit.de.frog

Padre_Pio wrote: »

So British manufacturers will need special labels or packaging specific to NI, and have to separate their delivery chains into British and NI produce? :eek::eek:

Star Trek was right :eek:

Donald Trump

Aegir wrote: »

So the EU are quite happy for a no deal Brexit because of fish?

How do Slovakia and Austria feel about that?

Probably a little less than the mythical German car manufacturers ...........

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

Probably a little less than the mythical German car manufacturers ...........

Anything to add to the discussion, other than snarky comments?

Donald Trump

Aegir wrote: »

Anything to add to the discussion, other than snarky comments?

Sure don't ask questions if you don't want anyone to answer them!


Are you waiting on Austria and Slovakia to ride to the rescue? Don't they know that they need the UK more than the UK needs them?


I see a lot of these kinds of videos on youtube these days. All automated voices (which would lead me to suspect that they are being posted by foreigners who want to help manipulate people in the UK) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFzWkvKTcyU


The gas thing is reading the comments. Many still have their heads in the sand and parroting Brexiteers slogans. The concern about Austria and Slovakia is a new one for me though. I haven't seen that before.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

Sure don't ask questions if you don't want anyone to answer them!


Are you waiting on Austria and Slovakia to ride to the rescue? Don't they know that they need the UK more than the UK needs them?

Congratulations on spectacularly missing the point.

Donald Trump wrote: »

I see a lot of these kinds of videos on youtube these days. All automated voices (which would lead me to suspect that they are being posted by foreigners who want to help manipulate people in the UK) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFzWkvKTcyU


The gas thing is reading the comments. Many still have their heads in the sand and parroting Brexiteers slogans. The concern about Austria and Slovakia is a new one for me though. I haven't seen that before.

so you don't actually have anything to add about Macron's threat to veto the deal if he isn't happy? or why the EU is suddenly concerned about it's fishing fleet's ability to fish in UK waters?

Just good old snarky comments again.

Well done.

Bonniedog

Leroy42 wrote: »

It isn't about caring as such, that is an emotional term and more closely resembles the UK position. The EU position is that this is something they want in return for giving something back. If the UK want access, to say Erasmus, or Visas or whatever, then what can the EU get in return.

The UK made it a Red line issue, so the EU took the pressure that the Uk would undoubtedly be under to deliver on fish to helo push for better terms in other areas.

The reason the EU pulled a fast one on the Brits and Paddies in 1970s was that our fisheries are a huge resource that the original six badly wanted.

They also realised the importance of that resource far better than the clowns who negotiated Irish entry. It has also been recorded that the Heath government basically lied about the deal they had made. Norway rejected membership on the basis that they knew that they were being sold a pup. Doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

This whole thing about "open markets" is a sham if the states which possess a vital resource such as fisheries have to surrender 80% of it to another entity.

We don't have many natural resources and like many other former colonies didn't bother our ar3e developing fisheries the way the Norwegians did, just as long as the centuries old live cattle export trade continued. Processing the meat here was laughed at in the 70s when raised by sceptics. And Fine Gael in particular was greatly influenced by the interests of the big cattle farmers. And we need not go back on the later corrupt relationship between FF and the Goodmans.

Same people who turned a blind eye to the use of basically illegal under minimum agency workers in the meat factories that had there been a real pandemic might have resulted in disaster. You don't keep a dog and bark yourself, as Larry and the boys know.

Nitrogan

Who drew the sea borders anyway?

It looks like the Norwegians were screwed.

Donald Trump

Aegir wrote: »

Congratulations on spectacularly missing the point.



so you don't actually have anything to add about Macron's threat to veto the deal if he isn't happy? or why the EU is suddenly concerned about it's fishing fleet's ability to fish in UK waters?

Just good old snarky comments again.

Well done.

Head in the sand still I think.



The EU is not "suddenly concerned" about fishing. Its stance on these matters were set out at the start and have been consistent the whole way through. If any proposed deal goes beyond the mandate that Barnier et al were given then it would not be unexpected to be met with a veto.



What is your point? Feigned concern for Slovakia and Austria because the UK is self-harming itself?

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

Head in the sand still I think.



The EU is not "suddenly concerned" about fishing. Its stance on these matters were set out at the start and have been consistent the whole way through.



What is your point? Feigned concern for Slovakia and Austria because the UK is self-harming itself?

They’re land locked countries Donald. But then geography has never been your strong point.

France appears to be the country that is digging its heals in over fishing, which according to many on here is a minor issue.

So let me ask you a direct question. Are you happy for the Irish agri sector to take the €1.5bn hit in the event of a no deal, as long as Macron is seen to be standing up for his (supposed) inconsequential fishing industry?

J Mysterio

Bambi wrote: »

Ahh the bould Conspiracy Carol still at it, trousered five figures from supporters to fight against Aaron Banks defamation case and when she knew she wasnt even going to contest it.

I suppose conspiracy theories are fine when its the right sort of conspiracy

What has this got to do with Carol