Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Debub · 03-09-2020 05:29PM

Seems like that there might be issue with food as UK Govt misses deadline to issue guidance for food labeling:

http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/world/uk-companies-fear-food-shortages-as-boris-johnsons-government-misses-deadline-for-new-brexit-labelling-rules/ar-BB18G8go?li=BBr5HCU&ocid=iehp

RobMc59 · 03-09-2020 05:49PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

How fishing waters would look next year:

I looked the map up as I was curious where you had seen it.Is it from the Daily Mail?I ask as the red line on lough foyle seems too far over to the British side,it's all British.

CelticRambler · 03-09-2020 05:59PM

RobMc59 wrote: »

Perhaps Johnson's cavalier approach has unsettled people within the EU,it's certainly got me very anxious.

As one of the "people within the EU" I can tell you that as far as those of us on the continent are concerned, Brexit is done and dusted, no longer news. No-one is unsettled, because the topic rarely comes up, other than as a passing mention of Barnier's periodic "no progress to report" reports. Other than that, our media is full of covid, covid, covid, Mediterranean migrants, covid, US elections, covid, Victor Orban, covid and the common-or-garden drug feuds/gang warfare/anti-semitic attacks that are back since lockdown ended ...

The only continentals I know who are unsettled by Brexit are those British who voted Remain and see what's coming at them. Other than that, it's my British friends (those of a thinking disposition, like you) who are agitated by the stupidity of their fellow-citizens - on the one hand, for voting Leave, and on the other, for believing the Johnson-Cummings propaganda, before and since the last election.

An Ciarraioch · 03-09-2020 06:03PM

RobMc59 wrote: »

I looked the map up as I was curious where you had seen it.Is it from the Daily Mail?I ask as the red line on lough foyle seems too far over to the British side,it's all British.

Yes - in terms of the 200 mile limit, however, the rest of it looks accurate.

CelticRambler · 03-09-2020 06:10PM

Debub wrote: »

Seems like that there might be issue with food as UK Govt misses deadline to issue guidance for food labeling:

I'm not sure that's such a big deal. Their current labelling has to be EU-compatible, so other than specifying that their ingredients conform to EU standards, and that the place of manufacture is GB, they shouldn't need to change anything?

Here in France Profonde, we occasionally get non-local produce with nothing more than a small sticker slapped over the original ingredients list setting out the French version of same, occasionally with an extra line or two of supplementary declaration.

But it is yet another example of the Johnson-Cummings administration being unable to cope with deadlines, whether set by themselves or others. That doesn't bode well for October.

Enzokk · 03-09-2020 07:14PM

Liz Truss was caught out removing meetings she had with the IEA (Institute of Economic Affairs) on her schedule. The excuse she used at the time was that the meetings were personal and not anything to do with her work. Strange that a right-leaning think tank that advocates for a clean no-deal Brexit would meet the Trade minister and it would not involve work.

But in a surprise nobody could have foreseen, the meetings are now back on the record after they were made aware and reading the ministerial code as well. This is what happens when you are there not because you deserve it, but because you believe in the cause enough.

Exclusive: UK trade minister reverses decision to remove think tank meetings from public register

British trade minister Liz Truss has reversed a decision to remove meetings she held with an influential free-market think tank from the public record, a move the opposition Labour Party said raised questions about lobbying in government.

Two meetings and a dinner with the Institute of Economic Affairs will be added back to government transparency data after the department deleted them in August, arguing at the time that they were held in a personal capacity, not in her role as trade minister.

Labour has accused Truss of trying to hide the meetings and described the latest u-turn as “shambolic farce”, saying she appeared to have been caught trying to circumvent rules designed to stop “secret lobbying” of ministers.

On Thursday, one of Truss’s junior ministers wrote to Labour to say that the meetings would now be reinstated on the public record, according to a copy of the letter seen by Reuters.

“The Secretary of State (Truss) was not immediately aware of these changes made at the end of August, and has now carefully considered the appropriate Cabinet Office guidelines,” Graham Stuart wrote in the letter.

BonnieSituation · 03-09-2020 07:39PM

RobMc59 wrote: »

A very interesting post and I have to say I agree with a fair bit of it(not all of it though!)I've looked back at the last few pages of posts here and there are multiple posts based on opinion and a fair few discussing outlandish hypothetical situations.Not one poster is pulled up for this until me today for my opinion based posts.I think I will refrain from posting here for a while...

Can you point out the "outlandish hypotheticals" please?

BonnieSituation · 03-09-2020 07:43PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

But it is blind faith that something, anything might happen. That is all they have left. There is still, 4 years later, not one piece of planning or forecasting that portrays any form of Brexit as a positive for the UK.

Food manufacturers saying now that it's too late to do anything about labelling for initial exports for January.

https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-food-companies-warn-boris-johnson-has-missed-labelling-deadline-2020-9?r=US&IR=T

The UK Gov say that they'll sort it ASAP.

Leroy42 · 03-09-2020 07:47PM

Taking back control by cancelling local planning laws.

https://twitter.com/Joe_Mayes/status/1301566163831476224?s=19

BonnieSituation · 03-09-2020 07:47PM

RobMc59 wrote: »

I looked the map up as I was curious where you had seen it.Is it from the Daily Mail?I ask as the red line on lough foyle seems too far over to the British side,it's all British.

Did we resolve the Foyle issue? I missed that. Just because you claim it, doesn't mean you own it. See Articles 2 and 3.

I would put any issues on that map down to resolution. Nothing to get het up over Rob. See Carlingford Lough. :rolleyes:

Igotadose · 03-09-2020 08:01PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Taking back control by cancelling local planning

Of their own people. What the Brexiteers always wanted.

RobMc59 · 03-09-2020 08:10PM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Did we resolve the Foyle issue? I missed that. Just because you claim it, doesn't mean you own it. See Articles 2 and 3.

I would put any issues on that map down to resolution. Nothing to get het up over Rob. See Carlingford Lough. :rolleyes:

No,you are correct to question my comment as Lough Foyle is disputed and it was discussed over in the UI thread.Looking at the map though the line is very far over.I asked where the map was from as i wondered if it was Irish as Lough Foyle is shown as in Irish waters.

BonnieSituation · 03-09-2020 08:11PM

RobMc59 wrote: »

No,you are correct to question my comment as Lough Foyle is disputed and it was discussed over in the UI thread.Looking at the map though the line is very far over.I asked where the map was from as i wondered if it was Irish as Lough Foyle is shown as in Irish waters.

It's just a crap map, with terrible mapping resolution.

listermint · 03-09-2020 08:43PM

RobMc59 wrote: »

No,you are correct to question my comment as Lough Foyle is disputed and it was discussed over in the UI thread.Looking at the map though the line is very far over.I asked where the map was from as i wondered if it was Irish as Lough Foyle is shown as in Irish waters.

Britain's about to lose access to vast amounts of water and have no access to the market that it would sell any of its catch to and we're looking at a crap map of Lough foyle. That's the take here... I think theres abjectively bigger fish to fry than a couple of kilometers of a fyord. But that in a nutshell is what Brexit was about madness on nonsensical stuff that never really mattered in the first place.

Peregrinus · 04-09-2020 03:03AM

RobMc59 wrote: »

No,you are correct to question my comment as Lough Foyle is disputed and it was discussed over in the UI thread.Looking at the map though the line is very far over.I asked where the map was from as i wondered if it was Irish as Lough Foyle is shown as in Irish waters.

In the present context it's irrelevant. The territorial status of the waters of Lough Foyle don't matter, because fishing in the Lough is regulated under the GFA by the Loughs Agency. The arrangements put in place by the Loughs Agency are expected to continue regardless of whether there is an FTA in place or not.

(Similar comments apply to Carlingford Lough, which the map is equally sloppy in depicting.)

fash · 04-09-2020 03:22AM

[Anton Spisak (@AntonSpisak) Tweeted:
It's true, as @JGForsyth says, that No10 prefers no-deal to a deal that would curb UK ability to subsidise domestic business. But this view is based on a false view of the reality. No-deal would, in fact, be a double surrender on state aid (THREAD) [URL]

https://twitter.com/AntonSpisak/status/1301620007080787976?s=20[/URL]

There really was some great drafting by the EU done in the withdrawal Agreement - this would be a rather wonderful grenade thrown into a no deal UK brexit - where the UK left to avoid state aid restrictions.

Tell me how · 04-09-2020 05:31AM

listermint wrote: »

Just thought I'd come back to his having read this fantastic quote today elsewhere . It trigged me to come back to this

Carole Cadwalladr. If I won the Euro millions, I'd give her 250K a year to hire and mentor a team of journalists.

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1301416874207596544

RobMc59 · 04-09-2020 05:37AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

In the present context it's irrelevant. The territorial status of the waters of Lough Foyle don't matter, because fishing in the Lough is regulated under the GFA by the Loughs Agency. The arrangements put in place by the Loughs Agency are expected to continue regardless of whether there is an FTA in place or not.

(Similar comments apply to Carlingford Lough, which the map is equally sloppy in depicting.)

Assuming the EU wants to retain current arrangements regarding fishing I'd say apart from sabre rattling the UK would gain nothing imo from having exclusive access to the fishing grounds.
No pun intended but it could also be a red herring being used as a bargaining tool to gain access to things like financial services etc?

Peregrinus · 04-09-2020 07:19AM

RobMc59 wrote: »

Assuming the EU wants to retain current arrangements regarding fishing I'd say apart from sabre rattling the UK would gain nothing imo from having exclusive access to the fishing grounds.
No pun intended but it could also be a red herring being used as a bargaining tool to gain access to things like financial services etc?

As regards Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough, the EU doesn't care (and neither does the UK). The fisheries in both places are insignficant.

As regards fisheries more generally, Brexiters attach totemic significance to fishing, far beyond what its economic significance justifies or ever could justify. And this opens up an opportunity for the EU; the UK government must, simply must, secure fisheries terms in any FTA that they can plausibly spin as a "win". Assuming the UK wants a trade deal at all (and I think significant elements within the government do want a trade deal) they are therefore vulnerable on this point. They will be willing to trade other things to secure "winning" terms on fisheries, and those other things are likely to be things of more importance to the EU, economically and in other respects, than fisheries.

So, yes, fisheries are being used as a bargaining tool. But I don't think it's by the UK.

CelticRambler · 04-09-2020 08:29AM

fash wrote: »

There really was some great drafting by the EU done in the withdrawal Agreement - this would be a rather wonderful grenade thrown into a no deal UK brexit - where the UK left to avoid state aid restrictions.

It illustrates the difference between the team of professionals with considerable experience in negotiating international trade deals, on the one side, and the pix-and-mix collection of friends-of-friends-in-high-places on the other.

They were warned, though, weren't they? :rolleyes:

RobMc59 · 04-09-2020 08:37AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

As regards Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough, the EU doesn't care (and neither does the UK). The fisheries in both places are insignficant.

As regards fisheries more generally, Brexiters attach totemic significance to fishing, far beyond what its economic significance justifies or ever could justify. And this opens up an opportunity for the EU; the UK government must, simply must, secure fisheries terms in any FTA that they can plausibly spin as a "win". Assuming the UK wants a trade deal at all (and I think significant elements within the government do want a trade deal) they are therefore vulnerable on this point. They will be willing to trade other things to secure "winning" terms on fisheries, and those other things are likely to be things of more importance to the EU, economically and in other respects, than fisheries.

So, yes, fisheries are being used as a bargaining tool. But I don't think it's by the UK.

That is the EU view.I'd agree fishing rights have a 'rule Brittania' use to stir up the likes of Mark Francois but in reality(as you have mentioned)fishing isn't a major industry in the UK and we buy a lot from Iceland.
Where I disagree with you is you say access to the UK fishing grounds is unimportant to the EU. That is obviously not true and the increasing furore over access proves that imo.If fishing wasn't of great importance to the EU why have they threatened sanctions on Iceland over fishing in the past?

Leroy42 · 04-09-2020 09:44AM

It sin't that it it is not important to the EU, it clearly is, especially to certain parts, but it is not the most important.

It isn't the most important to the UK either, proven by the fact that Farage only attended 1 fisheries meeting whilst elected to the EU, but they have allowed to become a cause celeb since all the other notions they had have fallen to the way side.

There is, for example, no more talk of German car manufacturers beating down Merkels door. So fish has become the new battle ground, but it should never have been more than a quick agreement and a few paragraphs within the overall.

But the UK put it front an centre, and the basis that it was they who held all the cards and they could force the EU to back down in other areas. Which is perfectly fine except for the fact that the majority of the trade that fishermen do is with the EU and as such it wasn't as strong a position as they thought.

But they have gone so far down the path that they are struggling to find a way to u-turn, but u-turn they will if given a way to do so.

Rather than a strong position, the UK have actually managed to make it a particular weak spot for themselves. The EU are going to continue to push for continued full access, knowing the UK cannot agree, and will then make a small concession in that area in order to get massive concessions in far more important (economically and long term for the EU) areas.

Peregrinus · 04-09-2020 09:45AM

RobMc59 wrote: »

That is the EU view.I'd agree fishing rights have a 'rule Brittania' use to stir up the likes of Mark Francois but in reality(as you have mentioned)fishing isn't a major industry in the UK and we buy a lot from Iceland.
Where I disagree with you is you say access to the UK fishing grounds is unimportant to the EU. That is obviously not true and the increasing furore over access proves that imo.If fishing wasn't of great importance to the EU why have they threatened sanctions on Iceland over fishing in the past?

Oh, it's important to the EU. It just doesn't have the totemic importance that the issue has for Brexiters.

Ideally the EU would like a trade deal that gives them access to UK waters (and UK markets) in return for giving UK fishers access to EU waters and markets. But they recognise to get a deal they going have to trade away some of the things they would ideally like. And this is something which they will consider trading away, because that's a trade for which the UK government will be willing to pay a high price. EU will get more as a quid pro quo for conceding on this than they will for conceding on most of their other ideal outcomes.

But they won't get anything as a quid pro quo for anything until the UK government is actually willing to start trading and, if past performance is anything to go by, they'll do all their trades at the back end of the process in a great hurry.

The nightmare scenario is that the UK government never gets to a point where they are willing to start trading, or they get to that point at a time which is simply too late in the process to complete it successfully by 31 December. For the past four years the UK government has been very much focussed on what they don't want, on putting distance between the EU and the UK, on setting up barriers to trade that aren't currently there, on not being in the Single Market, on not being in the Customs Union, etc, etc. And, the thing is, these are all within the grasp of the UK. They don't need a deal with the EU to achieve any of these; they are the default outcome of Brexit. So, in so far as this is what the UK is pursuing, the EU has very little leverage; the UK can achieve all th is without any agreement, co-operation, deal or anything of the kind from the EU.

But, of course, if the UK acheives only these negatives, that will be a disastrous outcome for the UK. For example, sticking with fisheries for a moment, the UK's exclusive right to fish in its own waters is pretty useless to them unless they also have a right to sell what they catch into the EU, since most of what they catch is stuff that people in the UK won't eat. And there's other stuff that the UK would dearly like to be able to sell into the EU on better-than-WTO terms. And it's on those asks that the EU has leverage.

Joe_ Public · 04-09-2020 09:50AM

Fishing is obviously of such national importance to the uk that they've already sold the majority of its quota to foreign owned companies. Or, to be exact, England. It's interesting, i find, that in brexit supporting England and Wales, the fishing quotas are majority foreign owned while in remain dominant Scotland and Northern Ireland, the stocks remain overwhelmingly in local control.

So, i agree with the consensus that the fisheries topic is much more symbolic than substantive, but just not in the way that dreamy brexiteers imagine about "taking back control."

Leroy42 · 04-09-2020 09:54AM

That leads to a question that has been banging around my skull for a while.

If no deal is done, and UK does indeed take back control of their waters, what is the situation with regards to the foreign owned quota's? I assume the quota's are gone as the UK is no longer part of the agreement?

Are the UK going to let it be a free for all, no limits, no quotas, anyone can catch anything at all?

Will foreign companies automatically lose their rights to fish in UK waters, or will they have to UK registered?

johnnyskeleton · 04-09-2020 10:19AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

That leads to a question that has been banging around my skull for a while.

If no deal is done, and UK does indeed take back control of their waters, what is the situation with regards to the foreign owned quota's? I assume the quota's are gone as the UK is no longer part of the agreement?

Are the UK going to let it be a free for all, no limits, no quotas, anyone can catch anything at all?

Will foreign companies automatically lose their rights to fish in UK waters, or will they have to UK registered?

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/oceans/unfishstock

The EU would say that their quota systems and the CFP generally is just the best form of compliance with the UNs rules, based on the best scientific advice.

So the UK has three options, as I see it:
1) basically implement their own identical systen and effectively change nothing;
2) claim that the EU science is wrong and seek to produce their own expensive alternative model;
3) Chagos Island it and just ignore the UN; or
4) realise that all the things they say about the Ezu - unelected bureaucrats setting the laws for them etc, also applies to the UN and leave the UN.

Of course, theyd never leave the UN because they have a permanent Security Council seat

bob mcbob · 04-09-2020 10:24AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

That leads to a question that has been banging around my skull for a while.

If no deal is done, and UK does indeed take back control of their waters, what is the situation with regards to the foreign owned quota's? I assume the quota's are gone as the UK is no longer part of the agreement?

Are the UK going to let it be a free for all, no limits, no quotas, anyone can catch anything at all?

Will foreign companies automatically lose their rights to fish in UK waters, or will they have to UK registered?

They could retain all the rules already in place but just insist that all fish caught in UK waters must be landed at UK ports.

Joe_ Public · 04-09-2020 10:36AM

I dont know really, but i wouldn't have assumed those quotas were simply gone, just like that. Either big compensation would be in order or legal challenges would be made, something like that. I think what brexit supporting fishermen imagined was the whole thing coming back into local owenership, everybody getting a slice of the pie, but they didnt reckon with the deep attraction the conservatives have for foreign money so i'd wonder how much things would really change. What should happen is government itself buying up all the fish stocks and then license the quotas out, but that probably sounds a bit too socialist for many.

bob mcbob · 04-09-2020 10:37AM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Fishing is obviously of such national importance to the uk that they've already sold the majority of its quota to foreign owned companies. Or, to be exact, England. It's interesting, i find, that in brexit supporting England and Wales, the fishing quotas are majority foreign owned while in remain dominant Scotland and Northern Ireland, the stocks remain overwhelmingly in local control.

So, i agree with the consensus that the fisheries topic is much more symbolic than substantive, but just not in the way that dreamy brexiteers imagine about "taking back control."

From a national (even in Scotland) perspective yes it is not that important but they have a clout larger than that - I think the Irish equivalent would be farming in Kerry (and the Healy Raes).

The fishing industry in Scotland comprises a significant proportion of the United Kingdom fishing industry. A recent inquiry by the Royal Society of Edinburgh found fishing to be of much greater social, economic and cultural importance to Scotland than it is relative to the rest of the UK. Scotland has just 8.4% of the UK population but lands at its ports over 60% of the total catch in the UK.[1]

Many of these are ports in relatively remote communities such as Fraserburgh, Kinlochbervie or Lerwick, which are scattered along an extensive coastline and which, for centuries, have looked to fishing as the main source of employment. Restrictions imposed under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) affect all European fishing fleets, but they have proved particularly severe in recent years for the demersal fish or whitefish sector (boats mainly fishing for cod, haddock and whiting) of the Scottish fishing industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishing_industry_in_Scotland

These communities have gone from SNP to Tories due to the Brexit promises. Watch what happens to support fo independence if they are sold out. So it is also political.

Peregrinus · 04-09-2020 10:48AM

It's probably worth pointing out that, prior to the UK joining the EU and participating in the Common Fisheries Policy, these waters were shared anyway. The platonic ideal of exclusive British waters fished in only by British fishermen hasn't been a reality in the North Sea literally for centuries.

And this makes sense. We may like to draw lines on charts to demarcate the waters of this or that country, but to a herring the North Sea is just one big playground, and they roam freely around. Management and conservation of fishing stocks absolutely requires agreement and co-operation between all the coastal states, and it's in all their interests to participate. And they all know this.

The issue that is being fought over here is not whether other fishermen will have access to British waters (and vice versa) but the terms on which this will happen.

Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments