Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Last stop before the midterms: Virginia 2021 – politicalbetting.com

245678

Comments

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    Mr. Moonshine as an aside, the BBC News website has a separate tab for Coronavirus, and then one for the Climate.

    I disagree entirely with your perspective, though. The idea that disagreement over a scientific theory is as bad as the enslavement of human beings is of the same brand of lunacy that brought you "words are violence".

    When an eminent priest in the religion prophesies the end of snow in the UK and then a few years later we have two of the worst winters ever recorded it doesn't inspire faith. Well, not in me. I must be a doubting Thomas.

    To anyone that doubts the thrust of the theory, I would ask that they compare the distance from the Sun of Mercury and Venus, their relative temperatures and the composition of their atmospheres. The scientific debate is really only about how much slack we have in emissions before we have changed the climate sufficiently to make life unpleasant enough that we wish we hadn’t.

    For sure I put it in the same box as industrialised human slavery. It is arguably far worse, as slavery impacted those alive at the time very severely but impacted their descendants to a far lesser extent, through the echoes down the ages of racial prejudice. The worst outcomes from man made global warming will impact many generations directly and as severely as the one that came before, unless a great deal of energy and treasure is expended to undo the damage. Much of which is irreversible of course. As has been noted, CO2 molecules are depressingly stable over a timescale far beyond the lifespan of pretty much any complex species, yet alone human civilisation.
    That is one of the most poorly informed and scientifically illiterate posts I have seen on here in a very long time.
    Bet you can beat it, no problem. You're a total flake on this subject, aren't you?
    If you mean an expert then yes.
    I have never met anyone who was a genuine expert in anything, who would in a million years describe themselves as an expert.

    Until now, of course
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640
    edited October 2021
    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    TimS said:

    Political climate change denial of the Tice variety I think will come to be seen in a similar light to those politicians who sought to delay or water down the abolition of slavery rather than the slavers themselves. The closer analogue would be the fossil fuel interests or the farmers deforesting the rainforests, but the comparison there falls down a little as fossil fuel use and intensive agriculture demonstrably advanced human development globally in a way slavery never did. It’s simply the case that these practices need to change, and change very rapidly, to avert catastrophe.

    The other analogy that doesn’t hold up is of climate scientists fear mongering over an unproven set of hypotheses. Unlike say Covid, the radiative forcing of CO2 is known, has been estimated to a high degree of accuracy for a century, and is replicated in a linear, monotonic increase in global air temperature, ocean heat content and sea level over several decades. The signal really is way greater than the noise.

    I doubt someone like Tice plans to doubt the science. There’s little mileage or credibility in that anymore. The arguments are now more about policy. I suspect his gist will be why should Britain do anything when China and the US emit far more. It’s the same as that classic poujadiste take that rails against speed bumps or drink driving laws because “they should be focusing on solving proper crimes like rape and murder”. Poujadisme has strong support in sections of society including the white van demographic, which is quite significant in Bexley and Sidcup.

    There is a lot of political mileage in doubting the policies, because many of them are self evidently absurd. McDonalds staff know that the soggy, unrecyclable paper straws are worse than recyclable (or reusable) plastic straws. The Council environmental health officer will tell you that composting leads to significant problems regarding the infestation of rodents, but it is politically impossible to say this. The people in the co-op know it is ridiculous to not be able to sell any bags at all; only useless 'compostible' bags which don't compost.

    Much of this can be accepted as largely harmless but annoying fetishes on the part of the 'educated' classes being imposed on the rest of society. However once they start bringing in measures that really harm low income people (such as a war on cheap cars and a green levy on energy bills), as they are now actually doing, with all the political parties falling over themselves to support the measures and dismiss any criticism of it, the whole thing can easily be made to look like class war.


    Truly opinions from the dark ages.
    Don't shoot the messenger.

    It is the progressives that are leading us in to a dark age; I am merely pointing out how.

    There is a lot of political mileage in doubting the policies, because many of them are self evidently absurd. Farmers staff know that a mobile, economically "free" peasantry is worse than a manorial-bound one. The tenant-in-chief will tell you that freedom from vassalage leads to significant problems regarding the defence of the land, but it is politically impossible to say this. The people in the baronial estates know it is ridiculous to expect artisans to be able to sell their wares on the open market; only useless 'market towns' which don't have a wide range of goods.

    Much of this can be accepted as largely harmless but annoying fetishes on the part of the 'educated' classes being imposed on the rest of society. However once they start bringing in measures that really harm low income people (such as stopping a mesne-lord being able to raise a militia), as they are now actually doing, with all the merchants and scribes falling over themselves to support the development of "capitalism" and dismiss any criticism of it, the whole thing can easily be made to look like class war.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    Mr. Moonshine as an aside, the BBC News website has a separate tab for Coronavirus, and then one for the Climate.

    I disagree entirely with your perspective, though. The idea that disagreement over a scientific theory is as bad as the enslavement of human beings is of the same brand of lunacy that brought you "words are violence".

    When an eminent priest in the religion prophesies the end of snow in the UK and then a few years later we have two of the worst winters ever recorded it doesn't inspire faith. Well, not in me. I must be a doubting Thomas.

    To anyone that doubts the thrust of the theory, I would ask that they compare the distance from the Sun of Mercury and Venus, their relative temperatures and the composition of their atmospheres. The scientific debate is really only about how much slack we have in emissions before we have changed the climate sufficiently to make life unpleasant enough that we wish we hadn’t.

    For sure I put it in the same box as industrialised human slavery. It is arguably far worse, as slavery impacted those alive at the time very severely but impacted their descendants to a far lesser extent, through the echoes down the ages of racial prejudice. The worst outcomes from man made global warming will impact many generations directly and as severely as the one that came before, unless a great deal of energy and treasure is expended to undo the damage. Much of which is irreversible of course. As has been noted, CO2 molecules are depressingly stable over a timescale far beyond the lifespan of pretty much any complex species, yet alone human civilisation.
    That is one of the most poorly informed and scientifically illiterate posts I have seen on here in a very long time.
    Do you doubt that carbon dioxide is a remarkably stable molecule unless subjected to high heat or moisture? Or that Venus is hotter than Mercury? Or that it has a co2 dense atmosphere whereas Mercury barely has an atmosphere at all?
    The Venus vs. Mercury argument is a powerful one - has this actually been solidified into numbers anywhere? It would be interesting to look at a calculation of the effect seen on Venus based on distance to the sun and amount of CO2 in its atmosphere, and what that means for a planet of Earth's distance from the sun and the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. This would be a very easy exercise for boffins, and whilst not definitive, would be interesting.
    Venus surface temp - a remarkably even average of 475c
    Mercury surface temp - *max* 449c - the temperature varies enormously because of the way Mercury rotates. Which means that the night side gets really, really cold.

    There's a ton of papers on the greenhouse effect on Venus, and effects of the various components of the atmosphere and the clouds.

    EDIT: Mercury pretty much doesn't have an atmosphere. Venus has one, all right. The surface pressure is the same as 3,000 feet underwater on earth.
    I'm sure there are, and I am not questioning it - it seems self-evident. I was suggesting that an extrapolation using those figures of the greenhouse effect on the earth would be interesting.
    IIRC without the greenhouse effect, Earth is rather chilly.

    The average Earth surface temp is something like 15c - without greenhouse effects, it would drop to something like -18c. Average.

    So you'd be looking at all water as ice. Pole to pole....
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    MattW said:

    Prince Andrew request to have case dismissed:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59099346

    Standard procedure in the States but ain't going to happen.
  • boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    I'd also be interested in knowing (so I'd like it if it were something Beeboids were finding out and telling us) what the reciprocal situation is.

    I presume that our fishermen have been given the same rules on rights to fish in French waters, so they have to prove the same historical activity.

    How are the French doing on processing our applications?

    How many have they refused?

    How are our fishermen doing against their French counterparts in being able to prove their historical activity?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,145
    edited October 2021

    TimS said:

    We’re getting binary again on a topic, this time China vs the west and emissions. That’s not the right way to see it, albeit I can see it’s convenient to either Tice types or West hating far lefties.

    The choice is not either China reduces emissions or we do. If China is slow to act - which, as commented above, compared with India or Brazil for example it is not - then the West is not “picking up the slack”. For a start the West is a useless term when it comes to climate change because of how much worse the US and Australia are than Europe or Japan. They are not the same bloc when it comes to emissions.

    Everyone needs to cut emissions, and fast. China needs to cut them a huge amount. So does the US. The poorer developing world need to develop in a greener way, but they will self evidently need help getting there. Australia and the Gulf states have absolutely no excuse. And we in Europe need to cut too, to do our bit. We have the technology and the business opportunity to do quite a lot.

    To return to the traffic cop analogy. The police should be catching rapists and murderers, and they should also be policing speeding and drink driving.

    That's not the argument that people highlighting China's emissions are making. The argument that they're making is that British businesses closing down do not represent a real drop on CO2 output, because demand for the goods they were producing does not fall, so production is merely moved to locations like China, where the energy needed to create the goods is no less, and indeed is more likely to come from coal. I have not heard many people on this site condemning Germany as an environmental villain, yet they are 'doing worse' than us on emissions, by virtue of the fact that they have kept much more of their industry. It is utterly ludicrous that a British PM should be able to get warm handshakes and a gold star at an international summit, because of our emissions 'success' when in fact what has happened is an economical failure. We need a new measure for the carbon that Britain and Britons are putting into the atmosphere, including carbon overseas.
    To me the argument about British businesses outsourcing does not stack up any more, as both domestic emissions (Production based) and including-outsourced emissions (Consumption based) are declining together:

    I'd say that argument ran out of gas in about 2006.



    https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-kingdom?country=~GBR
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,717

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    Mr. Moonshine as an aside, the BBC News website has a separate tab for Coronavirus, and then one for the Climate.

    I disagree entirely with your perspective, though. The idea that disagreement over a scientific theory is as bad as the enslavement of human beings is of the same brand of lunacy that brought you "words are violence".

    When an eminent priest in the religion prophesies the end of snow in the UK and then a few years later we have two of the worst winters ever recorded it doesn't inspire faith. Well, not in me. I must be a doubting Thomas.

    To anyone that doubts the thrust of the theory, I would ask that they compare the distance from the Sun of Mercury and Venus, their relative temperatures and the composition of their atmospheres. The scientific debate is really only about how much slack we have in emissions before we have changed the climate sufficiently to make life unpleasant enough that we wish we hadn’t.

    For sure I put it in the same box as industrialised human slavery. It is arguably far worse, as slavery impacted those alive at the time very severely but impacted their descendants to a far lesser extent, through the echoes down the ages of racial prejudice. The worst outcomes from man made global warming will impact many generations directly and as severely as the one that came before, unless a great deal of energy and treasure is expended to undo the damage. Much of which is irreversible of course. As has been noted, CO2 molecules are depressingly stable over a timescale far beyond the lifespan of pretty much any complex species, yet alone human civilisation.
    That is one of the most poorly informed and scientifically illiterate posts I have seen on here in a very long time.
    Do you doubt that carbon dioxide is a remarkably stable molecule unless subjected to high heat or moisture? Or that Venus is hotter than Mercury? Or that it has a co2 dense atmosphere whereas Mercury barely has an atmosphere at all?
    The Venus vs. Mercury argument is a powerful one - has this actually been solidified into numbers anywhere? It would be interesting to look at a calculation of the effect seen on Venus based on distance to the sun and amount of CO2 in its atmosphere, and what that means for a planet of Earth's distance from the sun and the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. This would be a very easy exercise for boffins, and whilst not definitive, would be interesting.
    Venus surface temp - a remarkably even average of 475c
    Mercury surface temp - *max* 449c - the temperature varies enormously because of the way Mercury rotates. Which means that the night side gets really, really cold.

    There's a ton of papers on the greenhouse effect on Venus, and effects of the various components of the atmosphere and the clouds.

    EDIT: Mercury pretty much doesn't have an atmosphere. Venus has one, all right. The surface pressure is the same as 3,000 feet underwater on earth.
    Yet, perversely, there is evidence of water ice on Mercury. Whilst it is close to the sun, the lack of an atmosphere means heat is difficult to transfer across the planet, and permanently-sheltered craters show evidence of ice.

    (In the same way, some Lunar polar craters may also contain water ice).
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding. And that vaccine trashing he did was abysmal. I marked him down bigtime for that. Moved him down a whole drawer. He's in the middle one of 5 now and he's not totally safe there.
  • MattW said:

    Prince Andrew request to have case dismissed:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59099346

    No sweat.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,901
    IshmaelZ said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Political climate change denial of the Tice variety I think will come to be seen in a similar light to those politicians who sought to delay or water down the abolition of slavery rather than the slavers themselves. The closer analogue would be the fossil fuel interests or the farmers deforesting the rainforests, but the comparison there falls down a little as fossil fuel use and intensive agriculture demonstrably advanced human development globally in a way slavery never did. It’s simply the case that these practices need to change, and change very rapidly, to avert catastrophe.

    The other analogy that doesn’t hold up is of climate scientists fear mongering over an unproven set of hypotheses. Unlike say Covid, the radiative forcing of CO2 is known, has been estimated to a high degree of accuracy for a century, and is replicated in a linear, monotonic increase in global air temperature, ocean heat content and sea level over several decades. The signal really is way greater than the noise.

    I doubt someone like Tice plans to doubt the science. There’s little mileage or credibility in that anymore. The arguments are now more about policy. I suspect his gist will be why should Britain do anything when China and the US emit far more. It’s the same as that classic poujadiste take that rails against speed bumps or drink driving laws because “they should be focusing on solving proper crimes like rape and murder”. Poujadisme has strong support in sections of society including the white van demographic, which is quite significant in Bexley and Sidcup.

    I'm interested in your comments regarding the scientific evidence for AGW. My understanding is that whilst it is still highly probable, the scientific proof had not really grown in magnitude so much as those advancing the case have grown in volume. But from your second paragraph, that doesn't appear to be the case. Please share more if you wish.
    I studied a lot of climatology at university as part of my degree. Even back then, in the 1990s, the radiative equations were known and closely supported in the climate record. However, the signal was only just emerging from the noise. Natural variability in the global atmospheric temperature is of the order of around 0.2-0.4C each year, and there are decadal oscillations of up to about 0.5C too driven mainly by ENSO but also to a lesser extent (0.1-0.2C) solar irradiance and Northern Hemisphere mid latitude circulation.

    By the early 2000s the signal was clearly emerging and scientists also realised that ocean heat content was less variable than air temperature year on year and showed more of a straight monotonic rise. Then we entered a decade where the sceptics fought back. First, some satellite estimates of temperature rise showed much slower (but still there) warming trend than surface readings. Then a prolonged period of repeated La Niña conditions in the pacific and strengthens trade winds flattened the atmospheric warming trend from around 2005 to 2014 (the “hiatus”).

    The satellite records turned out to have various measurement biases which once corrected for ended up giving a very similar trend to the surface (even the record maintained by climate sceptic Roy Spencer eventually got there), and the hiatus of course ended with temperatures rocketing in 2015 and 16. The line pretty closely fits the models and has done now for years. There is still a question mark over whether we are headed for equilibrium warming of day 2.5C or up to 6C because we still don’t know everything about the impact of feedbacks particularly water vapour and cloudiness, but the range of projections has been tightening into the 3-4C zone over time.

    The problem of communication is not so much from the scientists as some activists, who by promising apocalypse Tomorrow create a bit of a cry wolf situation. The fact is the temperature trends just go up and up, in a neatly linear fashion, decade upon decade.
    Thanks for a great response - much appreciated.
    A crude but helpful analogy: at the end of 1935 about 3 people understood that detonating an atomic bomb might be a possibility. At the end of 1945 there was rather more evidence available.
    A completely bogus analogy.

    In 1935, nuclear fission was yet to be discovered. It came in 1939, (Nature, Frisch & Meitner). Otto Frisch was the first to understand that an atom bomb may be possible, shortly after his discovery of nuclear fission.

    And the discovery of nuclear fission was a great shock (even Bohr or Fermi had not anticipated it, and their reactions to the discovery have come down to us)

    Szilard speculated about new energy sources in 1933 from nuclear chain reactions, not fission. (Not, as far as I am aware, atomic bombs).

    But Szilard used incorrect physics -- and his idea was rubbished by Rutherford (& others correctly).

    Anyone can use incorrect physics to come up with some phoney baloney.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    Mr. Moonshine as an aside, the BBC News website has a separate tab for Coronavirus, and then one for the Climate.

    I disagree entirely with your perspective, though. The idea that disagreement over a scientific theory is as bad as the enslavement of human beings is of the same brand of lunacy that brought you "words are violence".

    When an eminent priest in the religion prophesies the end of snow in the UK and then a few years later we have two of the worst winters ever recorded it doesn't inspire faith. Well, not in me. I must be a doubting Thomas.

    To anyone that doubts the thrust of the theory, I would ask that they compare the distance from the Sun of Mercury and Venus, their relative temperatures and the composition of their atmospheres. The scientific debate is really only about how much slack we have in emissions before we have changed the climate sufficiently to make life unpleasant enough that we wish we hadn’t.

    For sure I put it in the same box as industrialised human slavery. It is arguably far worse, as slavery impacted those alive at the time very severely but impacted their descendants to a far lesser extent, through the echoes down the ages of racial prejudice. The worst outcomes from man made global warming will impact many generations directly and as severely as the one that came before, unless a great deal of energy and treasure is expended to undo the damage. Much of which is irreversible of course. As has been noted, CO2 molecules are depressingly stable over a timescale far beyond the lifespan of pretty much any complex species, yet alone human civilisation.
    That is one of the most poorly informed and scientifically illiterate posts I have seen on here in a very long time.
    Bet you can beat it, no problem. You're a total flake on this subject, aren't you?
    If you mean an expert then yes.
    Thought you were a ... let me stay classy ... a "skeptic"?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    Mr. Moonshine as an aside, the BBC News website has a separate tab for Coronavirus, and then one for the Climate.

    I disagree entirely with your perspective, though. The idea that disagreement over a scientific theory is as bad as the enslavement of human beings is of the same brand of lunacy that brought you "words are violence".

    When an eminent priest in the religion prophesies the end of snow in the UK and then a few years later we have two of the worst winters ever recorded it doesn't inspire faith. Well, not in me. I must be a doubting Thomas.

    To anyone that doubts the thrust of the theory, I would ask that they compare the distance from the Sun of Mercury and Venus, their relative temperatures and the composition of their atmospheres. The scientific debate is really only about how much slack we have in emissions before we have changed the climate sufficiently to make life unpleasant enough that we wish we hadn’t.

    For sure I put it in the same box as industrialised human slavery. It is arguably far worse, as slavery impacted those alive at the time very severely but impacted their descendants to a far lesser extent, through the echoes down the ages of racial prejudice. The worst outcomes from man made global warming will impact many generations directly and as severely as the one that came before, unless a great deal of energy and treasure is expended to undo the damage. Much of which is irreversible of course. As has been noted, CO2 molecules are depressingly stable over a timescale far beyond the lifespan of pretty much any complex species, yet alone human civilisation.
    That is one of the most poorly informed and scientifically illiterate posts I have seen on here in a very long time.
    Do you doubt that carbon dioxide is a remarkably stable molecule unless subjected to high heat or moisture? Or that Venus is hotter than Mercury? Or that it has a co2 dense atmosphere whereas Mercury barely has an atmosphere at all?
    The Venus vs. Mercury argument is a powerful one - has this actually been solidified into numbers anywhere? It would be interesting to look at a calculation of the effect seen on Venus based on distance to the sun and amount of CO2 in its atmosphere, and what that means for a planet of Earth's distance from the sun and the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. This would be a very easy exercise for boffins, and whilst not definitive, would be interesting.
    Venus surface temp - a remarkably even average of 475c
    Mercury surface temp - *max* 449c - the temperature varies enormously because of the way Mercury rotates. Which means that the night side gets really, really cold.

    There's a ton of papers on the greenhouse effect on Venus, and effects of the various components of the atmosphere and the clouds.

    EDIT: Mercury pretty much doesn't have an atmosphere. Venus has one, all right. The surface pressure is the same as 3,000 feet underwater on earth.
    Yet, perversely, there is evidence of water ice on Mercury. Whilst it is close to the sun, the lack of an atmosphere means heat is difficult to transfer across the planet, and permanently-sheltered craters show evidence of ice.

    (In the same way, some Lunar polar craters may also contain water ice).
    Yup - without an atmosphere to transfer heat...

    Which leads to an interesting technical issue. Russian scientists found it very hard to design electronics that could work in a vacuum - heat transference issues. So all their early satellites had the electronics inside a can with an atmosphere in it (clean dry nitrogen IRRC).

    This had the effect of making their satellites rather short lived (among other reasons). So they needed a high launch rate.....

    This even effected the manned program - they couldn't depressurise the early capsules for space walks, so had to add some kind of airlock....
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,942
    MattW said:

    Prince Andrew request to have case dismissed:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59099346


    There might well be no case to answer despite him having been "convicted" without seeing all the evidence.

    I feel sure that none of us would like to be convicted of anything by public opinion.

    Remember the odd chap with purple
    hair convicted by the media of murder who proved to be entirely innocent....

  • We need a new measure for the carbon that Britain and Britons are putting into the atmosphere, including carbon overseas.

    This is a thing, it's called Consumption-based CO2:
    https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
    The thing we've done in the UK and Europe generally is to export our CO2 production, typically to dirtier more coal based energy than we'd use domestically, then given ourselves a tap on the back for having "cut" emissions.

    UK produced CO2 peaked in 1991, but consumption-based CO2 kept growing until 2007.

    Its only in the past decade that our consumption-based CO2 started falling and the irony is that if we had more industry in this nation we'd see our CO2 be higher but consumption-based CO2 would be lower given our cleaner energy.

    Sending all our industry to be powered by coal in China hasn't helped the planet.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942
    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    We’re getting binary again on a topic, this time China vs the west and emissions. That’s not the right way to see it, albeit I can see it’s convenient to either Tice types or West hating far lefties.

    The choice is not either China reduces emissions or we do. If China is slow to act - which, as commented above, compared with India or Brazil for example it is not - then the West is not “picking up the slack”. For a start the West is a useless term when it comes to climate change because of how much worse the US and Australia are than Europe or Japan. They are not the same bloc when it comes to emissions.

    Everyone needs to cut emissions, and fast. China needs to cut them a huge amount. So does the US. The poorer developing world need to develop in a greener way, but they will self evidently need help getting there. Australia and the Gulf states have absolutely no excuse. And we in Europe need to cut too, to do our bit. We have the technology and the business opportunity to do quite a lot.

    To return to the traffic cop analogy. The police should be catching rapists and murderers, and they should also be policing speeding and drink driving.

    That's not the argument that people highlighting China's emissions are making. The argument that they're making is that British businesses closing down do not represent a real drop on CO2 output, because demand for the goods they were producing does not fall, so production is merely moved to locations like China, where the energy needed to create the goods is no less, and indeed is more likely to come from coal. I have not heard many people on this site condemning Germany as an environmental villain, yet they are 'doing worse' than us on emissions, by virtue of the fact that they have kept much more of their industry. It is utterly ludicrous that a British PM should be able to get warm handshakes and a gold star at an international summit, because of our emissions 'success' when in fact what has happened is an economical failure. We need a new measure for the carbon that Britain and Britons are putting into the atmosphere, including carbon overseas.
    To me the argument about British businesses outsourcing does not stack up any more, as both domestic emissions (Production based) and including-outsourced emissions (Consumption based) are declining together:

    I'd say that argument ran out of gas in about 2006.



    https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-kingdom?country=~GBR
    Please stop quotes facts in a scientific debate. Emotional, gut base arguments, please. With a side order of personal anecdote?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,376

    MattW said:

    Prince Andrew request to have case dismissed:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59099346


    There might well be no case to answer despite him having been "convicted" without seeing all the evidence.

    I feel sure that none of us would like to be convicted of anything by public opinion.

    Remember the odd chap with purple
    hair convicted by the media of murder who proved to be entirely innocent....
    Dame Edna?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,901

    MattW said:

    Prince Andrew request to have case dismissed:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59099346


    There might well be no case to answer despite him having been "convicted" without seeing all the evidence.

    I feel sure that none of us would like to be convicted of anything by public opinion.

    Remember the odd chap with purple
    hair convicted by the media of murder who proved to be entirely innocent....
    An interesting question is .... who took the now famous photograph of a clammy Prince Andrew with his arm around Virginia in the Lady Ghislaine's flat. And why?

    You can see the image of the flash and perhaps the outline of the photographer in the window through the hall.

    This photographer is likely still alive.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,603

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    We’re getting binary again on a topic, this time China vs the west and emissions. That’s not the right way to see it, albeit I can see it’s convenient to either Tice types or West hating far lefties.

    The choice is not either China reduces emissions or we do. If China is slow to act - which, as commented above, compared with India or Brazil for example it is not - then the West is not “picking up the slack”. For a start the West is a useless term when it comes to climate change because of how much worse the US and Australia are than Europe or Japan. They are not the same bloc when it comes to emissions.

    Everyone needs to cut emissions, and fast. China needs to cut them a huge amount. So does the US. The poorer developing world need to develop in a greener way, but they will self evidently need help getting there. Australia and the Gulf states have absolutely no excuse. And we in Europe need to cut too, to do our bit. We have the technology and the business opportunity to do quite a lot.

    To return to the traffic cop analogy. The police should be catching rapists and murderers, and they should also be policing speeding and drink driving.

    That's not the argument that people highlighting China's emissions are making. The argument that they're making is that British businesses closing down do not represent a real drop on CO2 output, because demand for the goods they were producing does not fall, so production is merely moved to locations like China, where the energy needed to create the goods is no less, and indeed is more likely to come from coal. I have not heard many people on this site condemning Germany as an environmental villain, yet they are 'doing worse' than us on emissions, by virtue of the fact that they have kept much more of their industry. It is utterly ludicrous that a British PM should be able to get warm handshakes and a gold star at an international summit, because of our emissions 'success' when in fact what has happened is an economical failure. We need a new measure for the carbon that Britain and Britons are putting into the atmosphere, including carbon overseas.
    To me the argument about British businesses outsourcing does not stack up any more, as both domestic emissions (Production based) and including-outsourced emissions (Consumption based) are declining together:

    I'd say that argument ran out of gas in about 2006.



    https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-kingdom?country=~GBR
    Please stop quotes facts in a scientific debate. Emotional, gut base arguments, please. With a side order of personal anecdote?
    Oi! You forgot the obligatory dodgy analogy
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942

    TimS said:

    We’re getting binary again on a topic, this time China vs the west and emissions. That’s not the right way to see it, albeit I can see it’s convenient to either Tice types or West hating far lefties.

    The choice is not either China reduces emissions or we do. If China is slow to act - which, as commented above, compared with India or Brazil for example it is not - then the West is not “picking up the slack”. For a start the West is a useless term when it comes to climate change because of how much worse the US and Australia are than Europe or Japan. They are not the same bloc when it comes to emissions.

    Everyone needs to cut emissions, and fast. China needs to cut them a huge amount. So does the US. The poorer developing world need to develop in a greener way, but they will self evidently need help getting there. Australia and the Gulf states have absolutely no excuse. And we in Europe need to cut too, to do our bit. We have the technology and the business opportunity to do quite a lot.

    To return to the traffic cop analogy. The police should be catching rapists and murderers, and they should also be policing speeding and drink driving.

    That's not the argument that people highlighting China's emissions are making. The argument that they're making is that British businesses closing down do not represent a real drop on CO2 output, because demand for the goods they were producing does not fall, so production is merely moved to locations like China, where the energy needed to create the goods is no less, and indeed is more likely to come from coal. I have not heard many people on this site condemning Germany as an environmental villain, yet they are 'doing worse' than us on emissions, by virtue of the fact that they have kept much more of their industry. It is utterly ludicrous that a British PM should be able to get warm handshakes and a gold star at an international summit, because of our emissions 'success' when in fact what has happened is an economical failure. We need a new measure for the carbon that Britain and Britons are putting into the atmosphere, including carbon overseas.
    Germany's emissions are not so much "industry"* - factories run on electricity, uniformly** - as the use of brown lignite coal for power generation.

    *A rather brand term
    **Steel and Aluminium smelting - yes
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,623
    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    We’re getting binary again on a topic, this time China vs the west and emissions. That’s not the right way to see it, albeit I can see it’s convenient to either Tice types or West hating far lefties.

    The choice is not either China reduces emissions or we do. If China is slow to act - which, as commented above, compared with India or Brazil for example it is not - then the West is not “picking up the slack”. For a start the West is a useless term when it comes to climate change because of how much worse the US and Australia are than Europe or Japan. They are not the same bloc when it comes to emissions.

    Everyone needs to cut emissions, and fast. China needs to cut them a huge amount. So does the US. The poorer developing world need to develop in a greener way, but they will self evidently need help getting there. Australia and the Gulf states have absolutely no excuse. And we in Europe need to cut too, to do our bit. We have the technology and the business opportunity to do quite a lot.

    To return to the traffic cop analogy. The police should be catching rapists and murderers, and they should also be policing speeding and drink driving.

    Great post, and I'd add something. I see shades of previous debates on things like 'white privilege' and 'positive discrimination'. No acceptance whatsoever of any moral obligation on the present arising from the past. The past is all very vivid and pertinent when celebrating 'our great history', yet it mysteriously becomes an irrelevance when it comes to the question of whether it should drive actions and behaviour today that we find a little bit onerous and unpalatable.
    But that’s where we probably differ. I don’t think it’s helpful to introduce too much of a moral dimension to a scientific and technical challenge like this. It risks turning it into culture war when it’s not, it’s physics. If we want to achieve net zero globally, we can’t afford to turn climate change into a partisan issue.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942
    IanB2 said:

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    We’re getting binary again on a topic, this time China vs the west and emissions. That’s not the right way to see it, albeit I can see it’s convenient to either Tice types or West hating far lefties.

    The choice is not either China reduces emissions or we do. If China is slow to act - which, as commented above, compared with India or Brazil for example it is not - then the West is not “picking up the slack”. For a start the West is a useless term when it comes to climate change because of how much worse the US and Australia are than Europe or Japan. They are not the same bloc when it comes to emissions.

    Everyone needs to cut emissions, and fast. China needs to cut them a huge amount. So does the US. The poorer developing world need to develop in a greener way, but they will self evidently need help getting there. Australia and the Gulf states have absolutely no excuse. And we in Europe need to cut too, to do our bit. We have the technology and the business opportunity to do quite a lot.

    To return to the traffic cop analogy. The police should be catching rapists and murderers, and they should also be policing speeding and drink driving.

    That's not the argument that people highlighting China's emissions are making. The argument that they're making is that British businesses closing down do not represent a real drop on CO2 output, because demand for the goods they were producing does not fall, so production is merely moved to locations like China, where the energy needed to create the goods is no less, and indeed is more likely to come from coal. I have not heard many people on this site condemning Germany as an environmental villain, yet they are 'doing worse' than us on emissions, by virtue of the fact that they have kept much more of their industry. It is utterly ludicrous that a British PM should be able to get warm handshakes and a gold star at an international summit, because of our emissions 'success' when in fact what has happened is an economical failure. We need a new measure for the carbon that Britain and Britons are putting into the atmosphere, including carbon overseas.
    To me the argument about British businesses outsourcing does not stack up any more, as both domestic emissions (Production based) and including-outsourced emissions (Consumption based) are declining together:

    I'd say that argument ran out of gas in about 2006.



    https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-kingdom?country=~GBR
    Please stop quotes facts in a scientific debate. Emotional, gut base arguments, please. With a side order of personal anecdote?
    Oi! You forgot the obligatory dodgy analogy
    I think JosiasJessop can help you there - I believe he is branching out from retail sales of epidemiologists with configurable opinions...
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,623
    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    Mr. Moonshine as an aside, the BBC News website has a separate tab for Coronavirus, and then one for the Climate.

    I disagree entirely with your perspective, though. The idea that disagreement over a scientific theory is as bad as the enslavement of human beings is of the same brand of lunacy that brought you "words are violence".

    When an eminent priest in the religion prophesies the end of snow in the UK and then a few years later we have two of the worst winters ever recorded it doesn't inspire faith. Well, not in me. I must be a doubting Thomas.

    To anyone that doubts the thrust of the theory, I would ask that they compare the distance from the Sun of Mercury and Venus, their relative temperatures and the composition of their atmospheres. The scientific debate is really only about how much slack we have in emissions before we have changed the climate sufficiently to make life unpleasant enough that we wish we hadn’t.

    For sure I put it in the same box as industrialised human slavery. It is arguably far worse, as slavery impacted those alive at the time very severely but impacted their descendants to a far lesser extent, through the echoes down the ages of racial prejudice. The worst outcomes from man made global warming will impact many generations directly and as severely as the one that came before, unless a great deal of energy and treasure is expended to undo the damage. Much of which is irreversible of course. As has been noted, CO2 molecules are depressingly stable over a timescale far beyond the lifespan of pretty much any complex species, yet alone human civilisation.
    That is one of the most poorly informed and scientifically illiterate posts I have seen on here in a very long time.
    Bet you can beat it, no problem. You're a total flake on this subject, aren't you?
    If you mean an expert then yes.
    I have never met anyone who was a genuine expert in anything, who would in a million years describe themselves as an expert.

    Until now, of course
    To be fair he does have the perfect surname to be an expert in this field.
  • MattW said:

    TimS said:

    We’re getting binary again on a topic, this time China vs the west and emissions. That’s not the right way to see it, albeit I can see it’s convenient to either Tice types or West hating far lefties.

    The choice is not either China reduces emissions or we do. If China is slow to act - which, as commented above, compared with India or Brazil for example it is not - then the West is not “picking up the slack”. For a start the West is a useless term when it comes to climate change because of how much worse the US and Australia are than Europe or Japan. They are not the same bloc when it comes to emissions.

    Everyone needs to cut emissions, and fast. China needs to cut them a huge amount. So does the US. The poorer developing world need to develop in a greener way, but they will self evidently need help getting there. Australia and the Gulf states have absolutely no excuse. And we in Europe need to cut too, to do our bit. We have the technology and the business opportunity to do quite a lot.

    To return to the traffic cop analogy. The police should be catching rapists and murderers, and they should also be policing speeding and drink driving.

    That's not the argument that people highlighting China's emissions are making. The argument that they're making is that British businesses closing down do not represent a real drop on CO2 output, because demand for the goods they were producing does not fall, so production is merely moved to locations like China, where the energy needed to create the goods is no less, and indeed is more likely to come from coal. I have not heard many people on this site condemning Germany as an environmental villain, yet they are 'doing worse' than us on emissions, by virtue of the fact that they have kept much more of their industry. It is utterly ludicrous that a British PM should be able to get warm handshakes and a gold star at an international summit, because of our emissions 'success' when in fact what has happened is an economical failure. We need a new measure for the carbon that Britain and Britons are putting into the atmosphere, including carbon overseas.
    To me the argument about British businesses outsourcing does not stack up any more, as both domestic emissions (Production based) and including-outsourced emissions (Consumption based) are declining together:

    I'd say that argument ran out of gas in about 2006.



    https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-kingdom?country=~GBR
    Except the gap is growing. Domestic CO2 is growing faster than consumption-based CO2.

    Which if you scale it to look at percentages means that domestic CO2 is growing at a much faster percentage than our imported CO2 is.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,623
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding. And that vaccine trashing he did was abysmal. I marked him down bigtime for that. Moved him down a whole drawer. He's in the middle one of 5 now and he's not totally safe there.
    I’m with Ian on this one:

    https://twitter.com/iandunt/status/1454361929913413636?s=21
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,376

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    We’re getting binary again on a topic, this time China vs the west and emissions. That’s not the right way to see it, albeit I can see it’s convenient to either Tice types or West hating far lefties.

    The choice is not either China reduces emissions or we do. If China is slow to act - which, as commented above, compared with India or Brazil for example it is not - then the West is not “picking up the slack”. For a start the West is a useless term when it comes to climate change because of how much worse the US and Australia are than Europe or Japan. They are not the same bloc when it comes to emissions.

    Everyone needs to cut emissions, and fast. China needs to cut them a huge amount. So does the US. The poorer developing world need to develop in a greener way, but they will self evidently need help getting there. Australia and the Gulf states have absolutely no excuse. And we in Europe need to cut too, to do our bit. We have the technology and the business opportunity to do quite a lot.

    To return to the traffic cop analogy. The police should be catching rapists and murderers, and they should also be policing speeding and drink driving.

    That's not the argument that people highlighting China's emissions are making. The argument that they're making is that British businesses closing down do not represent a real drop on CO2 output, because demand for the goods they were producing does not fall, so production is merely moved to locations like China, where the energy needed to create the goods is no less, and indeed is more likely to come from coal. I have not heard many people on this site condemning Germany as an environmental villain, yet they are 'doing worse' than us on emissions, by virtue of the fact that they have kept much more of their industry. It is utterly ludicrous that a British PM should be able to get warm handshakes and a gold star at an international summit, because of our emissions 'success' when in fact what has happened is an economical failure. We need a new measure for the carbon that Britain and Britons are putting into the atmosphere, including carbon overseas.
    To me the argument about British businesses outsourcing does not stack up any more, as both domestic emissions (Production based) and including-outsourced emissions (Consumption based) are declining together:

    I'd say that argument ran out of gas in about 2006.



    https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-kingdom?country=~GBR
    Please stop quotes facts in a scientific debate. Emotional, gut base arguments, please. With a side order of personal anecdote?
    Or quote only relevant facts. The general trend of consumption based emissions falling is to be welcomed, but has nothing to do with whether there is any merit in taxing and regulating a British factory out of existence only to see a Chinese factory take its place.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    Except the initial and largest furore has not been with “this Boris Johnson government” it kicked off when the French fisheries minister was trying to bully the Jersey government - not a Boris in sight - into ignoring the terms of the treaty the EU signed on behalf of France (the beauty of being in the EU where you don’t have control over everything….).

    The States of Jersey followed to the letter the terms of the treaty and when the French realised that a few of their fishermen hadn’t kept their records (I wonder why??) that they wanted to ignore the treaty as that’s what members of rules based organisations do…..

    So the parts of the UK who naturally hate the UK think it must be the fault of our evil politicians and in no way the blame on the wildly socialist fishing minister whose constituency is dependent on the fishing vote, and of course in no way the fault of Macron trying to burnish his napoleonic credentials ahead of the election. Must be our fault of course.

    And in perfect timing the radio 4 news headlines started with Macron saying the fishing vow was a test of the UK’s international credibility! Not perhaps anyone saying the Fishing row is a test of France’s credibility to follow the treaty they are signed up to via the wonderful EU……
    They reported what the French president said since it was newsworthy. Just as they report (and more frequently) what our PM says. You seem to be hankering for a kind of "nationalistic" news service but we'd only contemplate that in wartime. This little skirmish, without for one minute underplaying the importance to us all of fish, is hardly that.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304
    edited October 2021
    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Unless you actually know the details for each boat aren't you making the same assumption you are criticizing the French of. I suspect like me you don't know the actual details so how do you know it is the fault of the French? How do you it isn't more complicated than that? Now I also listened to Radio 4 this morning and listened to someone representing the fisherman and what he was saying was that it is only a few boats that are in dispute and they either are very small boats who don't have the ability to prove they were fishing there or owners who have replaced their boats with another boat.

    How do you know it isn't lack of flexibility on our part on fisherman with prima facia evidence but not the proof required.

    I don't know, but I like to keep an open mind. We do have a reputation for obeying rules regardless where the French tend to be more pragmatic in looking at the point of a rule rather than the word of a rule. I know which I prefer.

    So it might be the French being unreasonable or it might be us. At least the French representative explained the issue, which is the first time I have heard this. Of course they might be trying it on.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Political climate change denial of the Tice variety I think will come to be seen in a similar light to those politicians who sought to delay or water down the abolition of slavery rather than the slavers themselves. The closer analogue would be the fossil fuel interests or the farmers deforesting the rainforests, but the comparison there falls down a little as fossil fuel use and intensive agriculture demonstrably advanced human development globally in a way slavery never did. It’s simply the case that these practices need to change, and change very rapidly, to avert catastrophe.

    The other analogy that doesn’t hold up is of climate scientists fear mongering over an unproven set of hypotheses. Unlike say Covid, the radiative forcing of CO2 is known, has been estimated to a high degree of accuracy for a century, and is replicated in a linear, monotonic increase in global air temperature, ocean heat content and sea level over several decades. The signal really is way greater than the noise.

    I doubt someone like Tice plans to doubt the science. There’s little mileage or credibility in that anymore. The arguments are now more about policy. I suspect his gist will be why should Britain do anything when China and the US emit far more. It’s the same as that classic poujadiste take that rails against speed bumps or drink driving laws because “they should be focusing on solving proper crimes like rape and murder”. Poujadisme has strong support in sections of society including the white van demographic, which is quite significant in Bexley and Sidcup.

    I'm interested in your comments regarding the scientific evidence for AGW. My understanding is that whilst it is still highly probable, the scientific proof had not really grown in magnitude so much as those advancing the case have grown in volume. But from your second paragraph, that doesn't appear to be the case. Please share more if you wish.
    I studied a lot of climatology at university as part of my degree. Even back then, in the 1990s, the radiative equations were known and closely supported in the climate record. However, the signal was only just emerging from the noise. Natural variability in the global atmospheric temperature is of the order of around 0.2-0.4C each year, and there are decadal oscillations of up to about 0.5C too driven mainly by ENSO but also to a lesser extent (0.1-0.2C) solar irradiance and Northern Hemisphere mid latitude circulation.

    By the early 2000s the signal was clearly emerging and scientists also realised that ocean heat content was less variable than air temperature year on year and showed more of a straight monotonic rise. Then we entered a decade where the sceptics fought back. First, some satellite estimates of temperature rise showed much slower (but still there) warming trend than surface readings. Then a prolonged period of repeated La Niña conditions in the pacific and strengthens trade winds flattened the atmospheric warming trend from around 2005 to 2014 (the “hiatus”).

    The satellite records turned out to have various measurement biases which once corrected for ended up giving a very similar trend to the surface (even the record maintained by climate sceptic Roy Spencer eventually got there), and the hiatus of course ended with temperatures rocketing in 2015 and 16. The line pretty closely fits the models and has done now for years. There is still a question mark over whether we are headed for equilibrium warming of day 2.5C or up to 6C because we still don’t know everything about the impact of feedbacks particularly water vapour and cloudiness, but the range of projections has been tightening into the 3-4C zone over time.

    The problem of communication is not so much from the scientists as some activists, who by promising apocalypse Tomorrow create a bit of a cry wolf situation. The fact is the temperature trends just go up and up, in a neatly linear fashion, decade upon decade.
    Thanks for a great response - much appreciated.
    A crude but helpful analogy: at the end of 1935 about 3 people understood that detonating an atomic bomb might be a possibility. At the end of 1945 there was rather more evidence available.
    A completely bogus analogy.

    In 1935, nuclear fission was yet to be discovered. It came in 1939, (Nature, Frisch & Meitner). Otto Frisch was the first to understand that an atom bomb may be possible, shortly after his discovery of nuclear fission.

    And the discovery of nuclear fission was a great shock (even Bohr or Fermi had not anticipated it, and their reactions to the discovery have come down to us)

    Szilard speculated about new energy sources in 1933 from nuclear chain reactions, not fission. (Not, as far as I am aware, atomic bombs).

    But Szilard used incorrect physics -- and his idea was rubbished by Rutherford (& others correctly).

    Anyone can use incorrect physics to come up with some phoney baloney.
    Spectacular point missing, congratulations. If a different analogy is more readily comprehensible, there were persuasive arguments proving the impossibility of powered heavier than air flight in 1890, not so much in 1910.

    Putting it even more simply, the best evidence that something is happening, is when it visibly and incontrovertibly happens.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,623

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    We’re getting binary again on a topic, this time China vs the west and emissions. That’s not the right way to see it, albeit I can see it’s convenient to either Tice types or West hating far lefties.

    The choice is not either China reduces emissions or we do. If China is slow to act - which, as commented above, compared with India or Brazil for example it is not - then the West is not “picking up the slack”. For a start the West is a useless term when it comes to climate change because of how much worse the US and Australia are than Europe or Japan. They are not the same bloc when it comes to emissions.

    Everyone needs to cut emissions, and fast. China needs to cut them a huge amount. So does the US. The poorer developing world need to develop in a greener way, but they will self evidently need help getting there. Australia and the Gulf states have absolutely no excuse. And we in Europe need to cut too, to do our bit. We have the technology and the business opportunity to do quite a lot.

    To return to the traffic cop analogy. The police should be catching rapists and murderers, and they should also be policing speeding and drink driving.

    That's not the argument that people highlighting China's emissions are making. The argument that they're making is that British businesses closing down do not represent a real drop on CO2 output, because demand for the goods they were producing does not fall, so production is merely moved to locations like China, where the energy needed to create the goods is no less, and indeed is more likely to come from coal. I have not heard many people on this site condemning Germany as an environmental villain, yet they are 'doing worse' than us on emissions, by virtue of the fact that they have kept much more of their industry. It is utterly ludicrous that a British PM should be able to get warm handshakes and a gold star at an international summit, because of our emissions 'success' when in fact what has happened is an economical failure. We need a new measure for the carbon that Britain and Britons are putting into the atmosphere, including carbon overseas.
    To me the argument about British businesses outsourcing does not stack up any more, as both domestic emissions (Production based) and including-outsourced emissions (Consumption based) are declining together:

    I'd say that argument ran out of gas in about 2006.



    https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-kingdom?country=~GBR
    Please stop quotes facts in a scientific debate. Emotional, gut base arguments, please. With a side order of personal anecdote?
    Or quote only relevant facts. The general trend of consumption based emissions falling is to be welcomed, but has nothing to do with whether there is any merit in taxing and regulating a British factory out of existence only to see a Chinese factory take its place.
    A CBAM will equalise the carbon related cost of production and remove this kind of distortion. To me it’s a no brainer. Internationalises the cost of emissions.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,883
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding. And that vaccine trashing he did was abysmal. I marked him down bigtime for that. Moved him down a whole drawer. He's in the middle one of 5 now and he's not totally safe there.
    He hasn’t got a “good case” on this fishing thing. He has no case. The French govt headed by Monsieur Macron are members of the EU, a rules based organisation no less, and under the terms of this membership (the leaving of which is so dreadful by the way) the EU are responsible for the management of fishing rights in EU waters and signed, as a rules based organisation, a treaty which laid out the conditions for continued fishing arrangements.

    The fact that the French discovered that a number of their boats had been very forgetful in keeping their logs of their fishing up to date, or even keeping them at all (perhaps some French fishermen think that writing is for softies like Moliere and it’s nothing to do with ensuring they can’t be busted for overfishing or fishing in protected areas, no sir) means that under the terms of the treaty that the rules based organisation signed on behalf of France in line with their rules of the organisation has left the French fishers caught at low tide with their waders round their ankles.

    So Macron has no case. The prosecutors of Dreyfus had more of a case. The best lawyers in Spiral would tell him he doesn’t have a case. What he does have a case of however is BDS and election fever.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942
    kjh said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Unless you actually know the details for each boat aren't you making the same assumption you are criticizing the French of. I suspect like me you don't know the actual details so how do you know it is the fault of the French? How do you it isn't more complicated than that? Now I also listened to Radio 4 this morning and listened to someone representing the fisherman and what he was saying was that it is only a few boats that are in dispute and they either are very small boats who don't have the ability to prove they were fishing there or owners who have replaced their boats with another boat.

    How do you know it isn't lack of flexibility on our part on fisherman with prima facia evidence but not the proof required.

    I don't know, but I like to keep an open mind. We do have a reputation for obeying rules regardless where the French tend to be more pragmatic in looking at the point of a rule rather than the word of a rule. I know which I prefer.

    So it might be the French being unreasonable or it might be us. At least the French representative explained the issue, which is the first time I have heard this. Of course they might be trying it on.
    I think part of the issue is the French expectation of transactionality - the licenses are a thing to the fishermen, who are a thing to their local politicians, who transfer there allegiance up the pole...

    So they expect the UK government to simply override Jersey and hand out the licenses, as a small quid-pro-quo in the political churn. This would in turn make the French fishermen happy and the happiness would move up the chain...

    Instead the UK government is not over-ruling the Jersey licensing system. Which is not how the dance is supposed to work. At least from some points of view.
  • boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    Except the initial and largest furore has not been with “this Boris Johnson government” it kicked off when the French fisheries minister was trying to bully the Jersey government - not a Boris in sight - into ignoring the terms of the treaty the EU signed on behalf of France (the beauty of being in the EU where you don’t have control over everything….).

    The States of Jersey followed to the letter the terms of the treaty and when the French realised that a few of their fishermen hadn’t kept their records (I wonder why??) that they wanted to ignore the treaty as that’s what members of rules based organisations do…..

    So the parts of the UK who naturally hate the UK think it must be the fault of our evil politicians and in no way the blame on the wildly socialist fishing minister whose constituency is dependent on the fishing vote, and of course in no way the fault of Macron trying to burnish his napoleonic credentials ahead of the election. Must be our fault of course.

    And in perfect timing the radio 4 news headlines started with Macron saying the fishing vow was a test of the UK’s international credibility! Not perhaps anyone saying the Fishing row is a test of France’s credibility to follow the treaty they are signed up to via the wonderful EU……
    Does anyone have a link to the EU regulations regarding position locators on fishing boats? In the age of GPS etc, it has certainly long been possible to record such things cheaply and with a small box of tricks...

    It is my understanding that "digital tachographs" are pretty standard in the trucking industry - and have been for a while.
    The head of the port of Calais on the BBC said just now that the small boats do not have GPS

    I am sorry but that is very difficult to believe not least for location if the vessel, no matter how small, finds itself in difficulty

    It is also true that it is Jersey who are taking the hard line with these boats and Macron is elevating it to an EU wide call to arms, and going as far as bringing in the NI protocol which has nothing to do with it

    We know who is playing politics, and it is not Jersey or Boris
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,717

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    Except the initial and largest furore has not been with “this Boris Johnson government” it kicked off when the French fisheries minister was trying to bully the Jersey government - not a Boris in sight - into ignoring the terms of the treaty the EU signed on behalf of France (the beauty of being in the EU where you don’t have control over everything….).

    The States of Jersey followed to the letter the terms of the treaty and when the French realised that a few of their fishermen hadn’t kept their records (I wonder why??) that they wanted to ignore the treaty as that’s what members of rules based organisations do…..

    So the parts of the UK who naturally hate the UK think it must be the fault of our evil politicians and in no way the blame on the wildly socialist fishing minister whose constituency is dependent on the fishing vote, and of course in no way the fault of Macron trying to burnish his napoleonic credentials ahead of the election. Must be our fault of course.

    And in perfect timing the radio 4 news headlines started with Macron saying the fishing vow was a test of the UK’s international credibility! Not perhaps anyone saying the Fishing row is a test of France’s credibility to follow the treaty they are signed up to via the wonderful EU……
    Does anyone have a link to the EU regulations regarding position locators on fishing boats? In the age of GPS etc, it has certainly long been possible to record such things cheaply and with a small box of tricks...

    It is my understanding that "digital tachographs" are pretty standard in the trucking industry - and have been for a while.
    The head of the port of Calais on the BBC said just now that the small boats do not have GPS

    I am sorry but that is very difficult to believe not least for location if the vessel, no matter how small, finds itself in difficulty

    It is also true that it is Jersey who are taking the hard line with these boats and Macron is elevating it to an EU wide call to arms, and going as far as bringing in the NI protocol which has nothing to do with it

    We know who is playing politics, and it is not Jersey or Boris
    It is hard to believe that small working boats do not have GPS in this day and age - although I'd be slightly concerned if they relied on it.

    A cynic might suggest that they don't want people to think they can tell their location too well, as there are some areas they technically cannot fish...
  • TimS said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding. And that vaccine trashing he did was abysmal. I marked him down bigtime for that. Moved him down a whole drawer. He's in the middle one of 5 now and he's not totally safe there.
    I’m with Ian on this one:

    https://twitter.com/iandunt/status/1454361929913413636?s=21
    That may be so but it is Jersey leading this dispute and France has told Jersey it will not be allowed to land it's catch at St Malo from Tuesday and is threatening their electricity supply unless it's demands are met
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,901
    edited October 2021
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Political climate change denial of the Tice variety I think will come to be seen in a similar light to those politicians who sought to delay or water down the abolition of slavery rather than the slavers themselves. The closer analogue would be the fossil fuel interests or the farmers deforesting the rainforests, but the comparison there falls down a little as fossil fuel use and intensive agriculture demonstrably advanced human development globally in a way slavery never did. It’s simply the case that these practices need to change, and change very rapidly, to avert catastrophe.

    The other analogy that doesn’t hold up is of climate scientists fear mongering over an unproven set of hypotheses. Unlike say Covid, the radiative forcing of CO2 is known, has been estimated to a high degree of accuracy for a century, and is replicated in a linear, monotonic increase in global air temperature, ocean heat content and sea level over several decades. The signal really is way greater than the noise.

    I doubt someone like Tice plans to doubt the science. There’s little mileage or credibility in that anymore. The arguments are now more about policy. I suspect his gist will be why should Britain do anything when China and the US emit far more. It’s the same as that classic poujadiste take that rails against speed bumps or drink driving laws because “they should be focusing on solving proper crimes like rape and murder”. Poujadisme has strong support in sections of society including the white van demographic, which is quite significant in Bexley and Sidcup.

    I'm interested in your comments regarding the scientific evidence for AGW. My understanding is that whilst it is still highly probable, the scientific proof had not really grown in magnitude so much as those advancing the case have grown in volume. But from your second paragraph, that doesn't appear to be the case. Please share more if you wish.
    I studied a lot of climatology at university as part of my degree. Even back then, in the 1990s, the radiative equations were known and closely supported in the climate record. However, the signal was only just emerging from the noise. Natural variability in the global atmospheric temperature is of the order of around 0.2-0.4C each year, and there are decadal oscillations of up to about 0.5C too driven mainly by ENSO but also to a lesser extent (0.1-0.2C) solar irradiance and Northern Hemisphere mid latitude circulation.

    By the early 2000s the signal was clearly emerging and scientists also realised that ocean heat content was less variable than air temperature year on year and showed more of a straight monotonic rise. Then we entered a decade where the sceptics fought back. First, some satellite estimates of temperature rise showed much slower (but still there) warming trend than surface readings. Then a prolonged period of repeated La Niña conditions in the pacific and strengthens trade winds flattened the atmospheric warming trend from around 2005 to 2014 (the “hiatus”).

    The satellite records turned out to have various measurement biases which once corrected for ended up giving a very similar trend to the surface (even the record maintained by climate sceptic Roy Spencer eventually got there), and the hiatus of course ended with temperatures rocketing in 2015 and 16. The line pretty closely fits the models and has done now for years. There is still a question mark over whether we are headed for equilibrium warming of day 2.5C or up to 6C because we still don’t know everything about the impact of feedbacks particularly water vapour and cloudiness, but the range of projections has been tightening into the 3-4C zone over time.

    The problem of communication is not so much from the scientists as some activists, who by promising apocalypse Tomorrow create a bit of a cry wolf situation. The fact is the temperature trends just go up and up, in a neatly linear fashion, decade upon decade.
    Thanks for a great response - much appreciated.
    A crude but helpful analogy: at the end of 1935 about 3 people understood that detonating an atomic bomb might be a possibility. At the end of 1945 there was rather more evidence available.
    A completely bogus analogy.

    In 1935, nuclear fission was yet to be discovered. It came in 1939, (Nature, Frisch & Meitner). Otto Frisch was the first to understand that an atom bomb may be possible, shortly after his discovery of nuclear fission.

    And the discovery of nuclear fission was a great shock (even Bohr or Fermi had not anticipated it, and their reactions to the discovery have come down to us)

    Szilard speculated about new energy sources in 1933 from nuclear chain reactions, not fission. (Not, as far as I am aware, atomic bombs).

    But Szilard used incorrect physics -- and his idea was rubbished by Rutherford (& others correctly).

    Anyone can use incorrect physics to come up with some phoney baloney.
    Spectacular point missing, congratulations. If a different analogy is more readily comprehensible, there were persuasive arguments proving the impossibility of powered heavier than air flight in 1890, not so much in 1910.

    Putting it even more simply, the best evidence that something is happening, is when it visibly and incontrovertibly happens.
    It is not possible to understand (your word) an atom bomb without nuclear fission.

    You might as well say HG Wells understood the atom bomb.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    Except the initial and largest furore has not been with “this Boris Johnson government” it kicked off when the French fisheries minister was trying to bully the Jersey government - not a Boris in sight - into ignoring the terms of the treaty the EU signed on behalf of France (the beauty of being in the EU where you don’t have control over everything….).

    The States of Jersey followed to the letter the terms of the treaty and when the French realised that a few of their fishermen hadn’t kept their records (I wonder why??) that they wanted to ignore the treaty as that’s what members of rules based organisations do…..

    So the parts of the UK who naturally hate the UK think it must be the fault of our evil politicians and in no way the blame on the wildly socialist fishing minister whose constituency is dependent on the fishing vote, and of course in no way the fault of Macron trying to burnish his napoleonic credentials ahead of the election. Must be our fault of course.

    And in perfect timing the radio 4 news headlines started with Macron saying the fishing vow was a test of the UK’s international credibility! Not perhaps anyone saying the Fishing row is a test of France’s credibility to follow the treaty they are signed up to via the wonderful EU……
    Does anyone have a link to the EU regulations regarding position locators on fishing boats? In the age of GPS etc, it has certainly long been possible to record such things cheaply and with a small box of tricks...

    It is my understanding that "digital tachographs" are pretty standard in the trucking industry - and have been for a while.
    The head of the port of Calais on the BBC said just now that the small boats do not have GPS

    I am sorry but that is very difficult to believe not least for location if the vessel, no matter how small, finds itself in difficulty

    It is also true that it is Jersey who are taking the hard line with these boats and Macron is elevating it to an EU wide call to arms, and going as far as bringing in the NI protocol which has nothing to do with it

    We know who is playing politics, and it is not Jersey or Boris
    It is hard to believe that small working boats do not have GPS in this day and age - although I'd be slightly concerned if they relied on it.

    A cynic might suggest that they don't want people to think they can tell their location too well, as there are some areas they technically cannot fish...
    Indeed. My watch has GPS. And can track my location for later download, if I tell it to. N number of free smartphone apps do the same.
  • Its quite clear that the issue in the Jersey/France dispute is entirely due to a small proportion of French boats not having the proof they're required to have to get the licence. Either because they're not entitled to one and are trying it on, or would have been but were cooking the books thus destroyed their own evidence.

    Its quite amusing then seeing certain types on this site and elsewhere trying to "both sides" this, or saying essentially "I don't know how, but I just know Boris is to blame".

    Some people have just closed their minds to evidence and are acting as delusional as Trump trying to both sides the white supremacist violence.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640
    TimS said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding. And that vaccine trashing he did was abysmal. I marked him down bigtime for that. Moved him down a whole drawer. He's in the middle one of 5 now and he's not totally safe there.
    I’m with Ian on this one:

    https://twitter.com/iandunt/status/1454361929913413636?s=21
    This was the standout line for me:
    "[The UK's] strict interpretation of fishing licences stands in stark contrast to its anything-goes attitude to trade in Northern Ireland."

    Fishing has long been an emblem of Brexit, for reasons I cannot fully understand. It's no accident that it's that industry that is generating such pointless heat.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,883

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    Except the initial and largest furore has not been with “this Boris Johnson government” it kicked off when the French fisheries minister was trying to bully the Jersey government - not a Boris in sight - into ignoring the terms of the treaty the EU signed on behalf of France (the beauty of being in the EU where you don’t have control over everything….).

    The States of Jersey followed to the letter the terms of the treaty and when the French realised that a few of their fishermen hadn’t kept their records (I wonder why??) that they wanted to ignore the treaty as that’s what members of rules based organisations do…..

    So the parts of the UK who naturally hate the UK think it must be the fault of our evil politicians and in no way the blame on the wildly socialist fishing minister whose constituency is dependent on the fishing vote, and of course in no way the fault of Macron trying to burnish his napoleonic credentials ahead of the election. Must be our fault of course.

    And in perfect timing the radio 4 news headlines started with Macron saying the fishing vow was a test of the UK’s international credibility! Not perhaps anyone saying the Fishing row is a test of France’s credibility to follow the treaty they are signed up to via the wonderful EU……
    Does anyone have a link to the EU regulations regarding position locators on fishing boats? In the age of GPS etc, it has certainly long been possible to record such things cheaply and with a small box of tricks...

    It is my understanding that "digital tachographs" are pretty standard in the trucking industry - and have been for a while.
    The head of the port of Calais on the BBC said just now that the small boats do not have GPS

    I am sorry but that is very difficult to believe not least for location if the vessel, no matter how small, finds itself in difficulty

    It is also true that it is Jersey who are taking the hard line with these boats and Macron is elevating it to an EU wide call to arms, and going as far as bringing in the NI protocol which has nothing to do with it

    We know who is playing politics, and it is not Jersey or Boris
    It’s not even that Jersey is taking the hard line - they have bent the rules as far as they can by taking the widest possible evidence they receive to agree a licence but there are boats saying they have rights and providing absolutely zero evidence.

    Jersey has been trying to get the EU to provide the evidence as it’s supposed to come through the EU but it’s not flowing and then when they tried to approach the French authorities direct to try and speed it up and smooth it over they were told this was not allowed!!

    Imagine you decide you wanted settled status in France and the Mairie tell you that you must provide various documents to prove you have lived there and worked there for a period of time. If you say to the authorities “sorry mate, you will just have to take my word for it” they would laugh in your face and deport you. And I would expect the UK gov to say “you knew the rules so you need to provide the evidence”.
  • boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    Except the initial and largest furore has not been with “this Boris Johnson government” it kicked off when the French fisheries minister was trying to bully the Jersey government - not a Boris in sight - into ignoring the terms of the treaty the EU signed on behalf of France (the beauty of being in the EU where you don’t have control over everything….).

    The States of Jersey followed to the letter the terms of the treaty and when the French realised that a few of their fishermen hadn’t kept their records (I wonder why??) that they wanted to ignore the treaty as that’s what members of rules based organisations do…..

    So the parts of the UK who naturally hate the UK think it must be the fault of our evil politicians and in no way the blame on the wildly socialist fishing minister whose constituency is dependent on the fishing vote, and of course in no way the fault of Macron trying to burnish his napoleonic credentials ahead of the election. Must be our fault of course.

    And in perfect timing the radio 4 news headlines started with Macron saying the fishing vow was a test of the UK’s international credibility! Not perhaps anyone saying the Fishing row is a test of France’s credibility to follow the treaty they are signed up to via the wonderful EU……
    Does anyone have a link to the EU regulations regarding position locators on fishing boats? In the age of GPS etc, it has certainly long been possible to record such things cheaply and with a small box of tricks...

    It is my understanding that "digital tachographs" are pretty standard in the trucking industry - and have been for a while.
    Managing small-scale fisheries

    To develop appropriate management measures for small-scale fisheries, it is important to have accurate and sufficient information on their scope, stakeholders, operations and impacts.

    Unfortunately, when it comes to small-scale vessels, that knowledge is far from satisfactory, as current EU fisheries control rules exempt them from accurately reporting their catches and their position while fishing.

    As a result, it is difficult to estimate their impact on the stocks and their sustainable management is challenging.

    https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/fisheries/rules/small-scale-fisheries_en
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    Except the initial and largest furore has not been with “this Boris Johnson government” it kicked off when the French fisheries minister was trying to bully the Jersey government - not a Boris in sight - into ignoring the terms of the treaty the EU signed on behalf of France (the beauty of being in the EU where you don’t have control over everything….).

    The States of Jersey followed to the letter the terms of the treaty and when the French realised that a few of their fishermen hadn’t kept their records (I wonder why??) that they wanted to ignore the treaty as that’s what members of rules based organisations do…..

    So the parts of the UK who naturally hate the UK think it must be the fault of our evil politicians and in no way the blame on the wildly socialist fishing minister whose constituency is dependent on the fishing vote, and of course in no way the fault of Macron trying to burnish his napoleonic credentials ahead of the election. Must be our fault of course.

    And in perfect timing the radio 4 news headlines started with Macron saying the fishing vow was a test of the UK’s international credibility! Not perhaps anyone saying the Fishing row is a test of France’s credibility to follow the treaty they are signed up to via the wonderful EU……
    Does anyone have a link to the EU regulations regarding position locators on fishing boats? In the age of GPS etc, it has certainly long been possible to record such things cheaply and with a small box of tricks...

    It is my understanding that "digital tachographs" are pretty standard in the trucking industry - and have been for a while.
    Managing small-scale fisheries

    To develop appropriate management measures for small-scale fisheries, it is important to have accurate and sufficient information on their scope, stakeholders, operations and impacts.

    Unfortunately, when it comes to small-scale vessels, that knowledge is far from satisfactory, as current EU fisheries control rules exempt them from accurately reporting their catches and their position while fishing.

    As a result, it is difficult to estimate their impact on the stocks and their sustainable management is challenging.

    https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/fisheries/rules/small-scale-fisheries_en
    Hmmm - this https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/news/outcomes-workshop-digital-tools-small-scale-fisheries-brussels-4-5-december-2018-2018-12-07_en looks interesting....
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,345
    edited October 2021

    Its quite clear that the issue in the Jersey/France dispute is entirely due to a small proportion of French boats not having the proof they're required to have to get the licence. Either because they're not entitled to one and are trying it on, or would have been but were cooking the books thus destroyed their own evidence.

    Its quite amusing then seeing certain types on this site and elsewhere trying to "both sides" this, or saying essentially "I don't know how, but I just know Boris is to blame".

    Some people have just closed their minds to evidence and are acting as delusional as Trump trying to both sides the white supremacist violence.

    To some it will always be Boris and the UK's fault and they just cannot see any flaw in Macron or the EU as it does not suit their purpose

    It is time to recognise that Jersey is only following rules that in every other case the EU are meticulous in following and enforcing themselves

    Macron is acting as a hypocrite because he has an election to win next year

    It is politics and not very edifying to watch
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779
    edited October 2021

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    Except the initial and largest furore has not been with “this Boris Johnson government” it kicked off when the French fisheries minister was trying to bully the Jersey government - not a Boris in sight - into ignoring the terms of the treaty the EU signed on behalf of France (the beauty of being in the EU where you don’t have control over everything….).

    The States of Jersey followed to the letter the terms of the treaty and when the French realised that a few of their fishermen hadn’t kept their records (I wonder why??) that they wanted to ignore the treaty as that’s what members of rules based organisations do…..

    So the parts of the UK who naturally hate the UK think it must be the fault of our evil politicians and in no way the blame on the wildly socialist fishing minister whose constituency is dependent on the fishing vote, and of course in no way the fault of Macron trying to burnish his napoleonic credentials ahead of the election. Must be our fault of course.

    And in perfect timing the radio 4 news headlines started with Macron saying the fishing vow was a test of the UK’s international credibility! Not perhaps anyone saying the Fishing row is a test of France’s credibility to follow the treaty they are signed up to via the wonderful EU……
    Does anyone have a link to the EU regulations regarding position locators on fishing boats? In the age of GPS etc, it has certainly long been possible to record such things cheaply and with a small box of tricks...

    It is my understanding that "digital tachographs" are pretty standard in the trucking industry - and have been for a while.
    Managing small-scale fisheries

    To develop appropriate management measures for small-scale fisheries, it is important to have accurate and sufficient information on their scope, stakeholders, operations and impacts.

    Unfortunately, when it comes to small-scale vessels, that knowledge is far from satisfactory, as current EU fisheries control rules exempt them from accurately reporting their catches and their position while fishing.

    As a result, it is difficult to estimate their impact on the stocks and their sustainable management is challenging.

    https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/fisheries/rules/small-scale-fisheries_en
    So the French have been following the rules to which the UK also signed up at the relevant times? And the treaty requirement is a retrospective change?

    Edit: which certainly introduces a conflict.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304

    Its quite clear that the issue in the Jersey/France dispute is entirely due to a small proportion of French boats not having the proof they're required to have to get the licence. Either because they're not entitled to one and are trying it on, or would have been but were cooking the books thus destroyed their own evidence.

    Its quite amusing then seeing certain types on this site and elsewhere trying to "both sides" this, or saying essentially "I don't know how, but I just know Boris is to blame".

    Some people have just closed their minds to evidence and are acting as delusional as Trump trying to both sides the white supremacist violence.

    Excuse me. You can't just say it is either/or just the two options you have decided it is. You might be right but you don't know that. It seems me you have the closed mind you are accusing others of.

    I completely accept it might be the options you stated. I, like nobody else here has a clue. You don't seem to accept the options put by a French representative this morning eg some Fishermen have replaced boats or small boats don't or haven't kept those records but have prima facia evidence they fished the waters.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,764

    Its quite clear that the issue in the Jersey/France dispute is entirely due to a small proportion of French boats not having the proof they're required to have to get the licence. Either because they're not entitled to one and are trying it on, or would have been but were cooking the books thus destroyed their own evidence.

    Its quite amusing then seeing certain types on this site and elsewhere trying to "both sides" this, or saying essentially "I don't know how, but I just know Boris is to blame".

    Some people have just closed their minds to evidence and are acting as delusional as Trump trying to both sides the white supremacist violence.

    To some it will always be Boris and the UK's fault and they just cannot see any flaw in Macron or the EU as it does not suit their purpose

    It is time to recognise that Jersey is only following rules that in every other case the EU are meticulous in following and enforcing themselves

    Macron is acting as a hypocrite because he has an election to win next year

    It is politics and not very edifying to watch
    France has decided the current agreement doesn't work and are taking a maximal position in order to force a renegotiation. "🤷"
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    TimS said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    We’re getting binary again on a topic, this time China vs the west and emissions. That’s not the right way to see it, albeit I can see it’s convenient to either Tice types or West hating far lefties.

    The choice is not either China reduces emissions or we do. If China is slow to act - which, as commented above, compared with India or Brazil for example it is not - then the West is not “picking up the slack”. For a start the West is a useless term when it comes to climate change because of how much worse the US and Australia are than Europe or Japan. They are not the same bloc when it comes to emissions.

    Everyone needs to cut emissions, and fast. China needs to cut them a huge amount. So does the US. The poorer developing world need to develop in a greener way, but they will self evidently need help getting there. Australia and the Gulf states have absolutely no excuse. And we in Europe need to cut too, to do our bit. We have the technology and the business opportunity to do quite a lot.

    To return to the traffic cop analogy. The police should be catching rapists and murderers, and they should also be policing speeding and drink driving.

    Great post, and I'd add something. I see shades of previous debates on things like 'white privilege' and 'positive discrimination'. No acceptance whatsoever of any moral obligation on the present arising from the past. The past is all very vivid and pertinent when celebrating 'our great history', yet it mysteriously becomes an irrelevance when it comes to the question of whether it should drive actions and behaviour today that we find a little bit onerous and unpalatable.
    But that’s where we probably differ. I don’t think it’s helpful to introduce too much of a moral dimension to a scientific and technical challenge like this. It risks turning it into culture war when it’s not, it’s physics. If we want to achieve net zero globally, we can’t afford to turn climate change into a partisan issue.
    That's definitely a point. It has to be about whatever works best. The left/right (in the west) partisan angle seems to come more from disagreement about solutions. In particular, on the right, a suspicion/dislike of anything too collectivist, or of ceding power beyond the nation state, or of measures which make demands on or add costs to our lifestyle. But I'm actually heartened by the degree of consensus.

    1. The planet is warming.
    2. Human activity is to a great extent causing it.
    3. Action is needed urgently to address this.
    4. If it isn't taken, there will be terrible consequences.

    The vast majority of politicians accept this, I think.

    Course, one who doesn't is the betting favourite for next US president. So fingers crossed there.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,460
    Dura_Ace said:

    Its quite clear that the issue in the Jersey/France dispute is entirely due to a small proportion of French boats not having the proof they're required to have to get the licence. Either because they're not entitled to one and are trying it on, or would have been but were cooking the books thus destroyed their own evidence.

    Its quite amusing then seeing certain types on this site and elsewhere trying to "both sides" this, or saying essentially "I don't know how, but I just know Boris is to blame".

    Some people have just closed their minds to evidence and are acting as delusional as Trump trying to both sides the white supremacist violence.

    To some it will always be Boris and the UK's fault and they just cannot see any flaw in Macron or the EU as it does not suit their purpose

    It is time to recognise that Jersey is only following rules that in every other case the EU are meticulous in following and enforcing themselves

    Macron is acting as a hypocrite because he has an election to win next year

    It is politics and not very edifying to watch
    France has decided the current agreement doesn't work and are taking a maximal position in order to force a renegotiation. "🤷"
    And if they were a party to the agreement, that would be fine. But the party is the EU, not France.
  • Farooq said:

    TimS said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding. And that vaccine trashing he did was abysmal. I marked him down bigtime for that. Moved him down a whole drawer. He's in the middle one of 5 now and he's not totally safe there.
    I’m with Ian on this one:

    https://twitter.com/iandunt/status/1454361929913413636?s=21
    This was the standout line for me:
    "[The UK's] strict interpretation of fishing licences stands in stark contrast to its anything-goes attitude to trade in Northern Ireland."

    Fishing has long been an emblem of Brexit, for reasons I cannot fully understand. It's no accident that it's that industry that is generating such pointless heat.
    It is Jersey who are in direct confrontation with France and St Malo is to close to their fishermen on Tuesday unless they waive the rules
  • PJHPJH Posts: 274
    boulay said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    Except the initial and largest furore has not been with “this Boris Johnson government” it kicked off when the French fisheries minister was trying to bully the Jersey government - not a Boris in sight - into ignoring the terms of the treaty the EU signed on behalf of France (the beauty of being in the EU where you don’t have control over everything….).

    The States of Jersey followed to the letter the terms of the treaty and when the French realised that a few of their fishermen hadn’t kept their records (I wonder why??) that they wanted to ignore the treaty as that’s what members of rules based organisations do…..

    So the parts of the UK who naturally hate the UK think it must be the fault of our evil politicians and in no way the blame on the wildly socialist fishing minister whose constituency is dependent on the fishing vote, and of course in no way the fault of Macron trying to burnish his napoleonic credentials ahead of the election. Must be our fault of course.

    And in perfect timing the radio 4 news headlines started with Macron saying the fishing vow was a test of the UK’s international credibility! Not perhaps anyone saying the Fishing row is a test of France’s credibility to follow the treaty they are signed up to via the wonderful EU……
    Does anyone have a link to the EU regulations regarding position locators on fishing boats? In the age of GPS etc, it has certainly long been possible to record such things cheaply and with a small box of tricks...

    It is my understanding that "digital tachographs" are pretty standard in the trucking industry - and have been for a while.
    The head of the port of Calais on the BBC said just now that the small boats do not have GPS

    I am sorry but that is very difficult to believe not least for location if the vessel, no matter how small, finds itself in difficulty

    It is also true that it is Jersey who are taking the hard line with these boats and Macron is elevating it to an EU wide call to arms, and going as far as bringing in the NI protocol which has nothing to do with it

    We know who is playing politics, and it is not Jersey or Boris
    It’s not even that Jersey is taking the hard line - they have bent the rules as far as they can by taking the widest possible evidence they receive to agree a licence but there are boats saying they have rights and providing absolutely zero evidence.

    Jersey has been trying to get the EU to provide the evidence as it’s supposed to come through the EU but it’s not flowing and then when they tried to approach the French authorities direct to try and speed it up and smooth it over they were told this was not allowed!!

    Imagine you decide you wanted settled status in France and the Mairie tell you that you must provide various documents to prove you have lived there and worked there for a period of time. If you say to the authorities “sorry mate, you will just have to take my word for it” they would laugh in your face and deport you. And I would expect the UK gov to say “you knew the rules so you need to provide the evidence”.
    I wouldn't normally take the UK Government's side in anything but on this occasion France is clearly in the wrong. However I think the UK response shows that it is in the (perceived) interest of both Macron and Johnson to pick a fight over something trivial - Macron for re-election, Johnson to maintain an 'enemy' to disguise the problems of Brexit.

    If we wanted to diffuse the situation, we would just get the States of Jersey to put out a statement saying that the number of applications for licences had been much lower than expected and inviting local fishermen who used to fish in local waters to apply.
  • kjh said:

    Its quite clear that the issue in the Jersey/France dispute is entirely due to a small proportion of French boats not having the proof they're required to have to get the licence. Either because they're not entitled to one and are trying it on, or would have been but were cooking the books thus destroyed their own evidence.

    Its quite amusing then seeing certain types on this site and elsewhere trying to "both sides" this, or saying essentially "I don't know how, but I just know Boris is to blame".

    Some people have just closed their minds to evidence and are acting as delusional as Trump trying to both sides the white supremacist violence.

    Excuse me. You can't just say it is either/or just the two options you have decided it is. You might be right but you don't know that. It seems me you have the closed mind you are accusing others of.

    I completely accept it might be the options you stated. I, like nobody else here has a clue. You don't seem to accept the options put by a French representative this morning eg some Fishermen have replaced boats or small boats don't or haven't kept those records but have prima facia evidence they fished the waters.
    All boats have landing logs so it should not be difficult to prove unless they did nit fish in those waters
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    edited October 2021
    TimS said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding. And that vaccine trashing he did was abysmal. I marked him down bigtime for that. Moved him down a whole drawer. He's in the middle one of 5 now and he's not totally safe there.
    I’m with Ian on this one:

    https://twitter.com/iandunt/status/1454361929913413636?s=21
    Ha. Very much so. But it's one of the biggest 'Benefits of Brexit' - the ability to have fisticuffs in the Channel with the French which get everyone all pumped up and glad we left.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    "The Supreme Court is about to have a week for the ages. On Monday, the justices will hear arguments about whether to allow a Justice Department suit to proceed against Texas’ near ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Two days later, they will consider a challenge to a New York restriction on who can carry a gun outside the home. These are blockbuster cases..."

    NY Times
  • PJH said:

    boulay said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    Except the initial and largest furore has not been with “this Boris Johnson government” it kicked off when the French fisheries minister was trying to bully the Jersey government - not a Boris in sight - into ignoring the terms of the treaty the EU signed on behalf of France (the beauty of being in the EU where you don’t have control over everything….).

    The States of Jersey followed to the letter the terms of the treaty and when the French realised that a few of their fishermen hadn’t kept their records (I wonder why??) that they wanted to ignore the treaty as that’s what members of rules based organisations do…..

    So the parts of the UK who naturally hate the UK think it must be the fault of our evil politicians and in no way the blame on the wildly socialist fishing minister whose constituency is dependent on the fishing vote, and of course in no way the fault of Macron trying to burnish his napoleonic credentials ahead of the election. Must be our fault of course.

    And in perfect timing the radio 4 news headlines started with Macron saying the fishing vow was a test of the UK’s international credibility! Not perhaps anyone saying the Fishing row is a test of France’s credibility to follow the treaty they are signed up to via the wonderful EU……
    Does anyone have a link to the EU regulations regarding position locators on fishing boats? In the age of GPS etc, it has certainly long been possible to record such things cheaply and with a small box of tricks...

    It is my understanding that "digital tachographs" are pretty standard in the trucking industry - and have been for a while.
    The head of the port of Calais on the BBC said just now that the small boats do not have GPS

    I am sorry but that is very difficult to believe not least for location if the vessel, no matter how small, finds itself in difficulty

    It is also true that it is Jersey who are taking the hard line with these boats and Macron is elevating it to an EU wide call to arms, and going as far as bringing in the NI protocol which has nothing to do with it

    We know who is playing politics, and it is not Jersey or Boris
    It’s not even that Jersey is taking the hard line - they have bent the rules as far as they can by taking the widest possible evidence they receive to agree a licence but there are boats saying they have rights and providing absolutely zero evidence.

    Jersey has been trying to get the EU to provide the evidence as it’s supposed to come through the EU but it’s not flowing and then when they tried to approach the French authorities direct to try and speed it up and smooth it over they were told this was not allowed!!

    Imagine you decide you wanted settled status in France and the Mairie tell you that you must provide various documents to prove you have lived there and worked there for a period of time. If you say to the authorities “sorry mate, you will just have to take my word for it” they would laugh in your face and deport you. And I would expect the UK gov to say “you knew the rules so you need to provide the evidence”.
    I wouldn't normally take the UK Government's side in anything but on this occasion France is clearly in the wrong. However I think the UK response shows that it is in the (perceived) interest of both Macron and Johnson to pick a fight over something trivial - Macron for re-election, Johnson to maintain an 'enemy' to disguise the problems of Brexit.

    If we wanted to diffuse the situation, we would just get the States of Jersey to put out a statement saying that the number of applications for licences had been much lower than expected and inviting local fishermen who used to fish in local waters to apply.
    Listening across the media this morning it is Jersey who are not issuing the permits due to absence of information necessarily required from the French boats

    Why that information is not available is speculation but it simply is not available at present
  • Dura_Ace said:

    Its quite clear that the issue in the Jersey/France dispute is entirely due to a small proportion of French boats not having the proof they're required to have to get the licence. Either because they're not entitled to one and are trying it on, or would have been but were cooking the books thus destroyed their own evidence.

    Its quite amusing then seeing certain types on this site and elsewhere trying to "both sides" this, or saying essentially "I don't know how, but I just know Boris is to blame".

    Some people have just closed their minds to evidence and are acting as delusional as Trump trying to both sides the white supremacist violence.

    To some it will always be Boris and the UK's fault and they just cannot see any flaw in Macron or the EU as it does not suit their purpose

    It is time to recognise that Jersey is only following rules that in every other case the EU are meticulous in following and enforcing themselves

    Macron is acting as a hypocrite because he has an election to win next year

    It is politics and not very edifying to watch
    France has decided the current agreement doesn't work and are taking a maximal position in order to force a renegotiation. "🤷"
    If they want a renegotiation they should come out and say so, instead they're trying to claim they want the deal enforced while throwing a strop about the deal being enforced.

    Oh and they're not a party to the deal directly, since the EU are. So they'll need to convince the EU that they want to reopen negotiations, or Frexit.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,883
    PJH said:

    boulay said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    Except the initial and largest furore has not been with “this Boris Johnson government” it kicked off when the French fisheries minister was trying to bully the Jersey government - not a Boris in sight - into ignoring the terms of the treaty the EU signed on behalf of France (the beauty of being in the EU where you don’t have control over everything….).

    The States of Jersey followed to the letter the terms of the treaty and when the French realised that a few of their fishermen hadn’t kept their records (I wonder why??) that they wanted to ignore the treaty as that’s what members of rules based organisations do…..

    So the parts of the UK who naturally hate the UK think it must be the fault of our evil politicians and in no way the blame on the wildly socialist fishing minister whose constituency is dependent on the fishing vote, and of course in no way the fault of Macron trying to burnish his napoleonic credentials ahead of the election. Must be our fault of course.

    And in perfect timing the radio 4 news headlines started with Macron saying the fishing vow was a test of the UK’s international credibility! Not perhaps anyone saying the Fishing row is a test of France’s credibility to follow the treaty they are signed up to via the wonderful EU……
    Does anyone have a link to the EU regulations regarding position locators on fishing boats? In the age of GPS etc, it has certainly long been possible to record such things cheaply and with a small box of tricks...

    It is my understanding that "digital tachographs" are pretty standard in the trucking industry - and have been for a while.
    The head of the port of Calais on the BBC said just now that the small boats do not have GPS

    I am sorry but that is very difficult to believe not least for location if the vessel, no matter how small, finds itself in difficulty

    It is also true that it is Jersey who are taking the hard line with these boats and Macron is elevating it to an EU wide call to arms, and going as far as bringing in the NI protocol which has nothing to do with it

    We know who is playing politics, and it is not Jersey or Boris
    It’s not even that Jersey is taking the hard line - they have bent the rules as far as they can by taking the widest possible evidence they receive to agree a licence but there are boats saying they have rights and providing absolutely zero evidence.

    Jersey has been trying to get the EU to provide the evidence as it’s supposed to come through the EU but it’s not flowing and then when they tried to approach the French authorities direct to try and speed it up and smooth it over they were told this was not allowed!!

    Imagine you decide you wanted settled status in France and the Mairie tell you that you must provide various documents to prove you have lived there and worked there for a period of time. If you say to the authorities “sorry mate, you will just have to take my word for it” they would laugh in your face and deport you. And I would expect the UK gov to say “you knew the rules so you need to provide the evidence”.
    I wouldn't normally take the UK Government's side in anything but on this occasion France is clearly in the wrong. However I think the UK response shows that it is in the (perceived) interest of both Macron and Johnson to pick a fight over something trivial - Macron for re-election, Johnson to maintain an 'enemy' to disguise the problems of Brexit.

    If we wanted to diffuse the situation, we would just get the States of Jersey to put out a statement saying that the number of applications for licences had been much lower than expected and inviting local fishermen who used to fish in local waters to apply.
    When even the “local” French fishermen are wary of overfishing the area as per the article I posted a link to earlier, relevant part below, then dishing out more licences for the sake of it is not a solution either. The area is already overfished and if there wasn’t a treaty obligation then it would be in the interests of the environment yet alone local fisheries to not issue any more licences.

    “At a local level, we are taking Jersey shellfish into Granville and Saint Malo. The French fishermen that I deal with on a daily basis who applied for a licence from Jersey were given one.

    “They are happy and are actively fishing to put food on their families’ tables; they don’t have time to go on Facebook or speak to the media.

    “Also, they don’t want boats that don’t usually fish around Jersey to be given licences because that will impact on the available resource.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914

    MattW said:

    Prince Andrew request to have case dismissed:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59099346


    There might well be no case to answer despite him having been "convicted" without seeing all the evidence.

    I feel sure that none of us would like to be convicted of anything by public opinion.

    Remember the odd chap with purple
    hair convicted by the media of murder who proved to be entirely innocent....
    An interesting question is .... who took the now famous photograph of a clammy Prince Andrew with his arm around Virginia in the Lady Ghislaine's flat. And why?

    You can see the image of the flash and perhaps the outline of the photographer in the window through the hall.

    This photographer is likely still alive.
    That Andrew is "clammy" in the photo proves it's a fake. The guy doesn't sweat. He actually can't sweat. It's a medical thing and a matter of public record.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,145
    PJH said:

    boulay said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    Except the initial and largest furore has not been with “this Boris Johnson government” it kicked off when the French fisheries minister was trying to bully the Jersey government - not a Boris in sight - into ignoring the terms of the treaty the EU signed on behalf of France (the beauty of being in the EU where you don’t have control over everything….).

    The States of Jersey followed to the letter the terms of the treaty and when the French realised that a few of their fishermen hadn’t kept their records (I wonder why??) that they wanted to ignore the treaty as that’s what members of rules based organisations do…..

    So the parts of the UK who naturally hate the UK think it must be the fault of our evil politicians and in no way the blame on the wildly socialist fishing minister whose constituency is dependent on the fishing vote, and of course in no way the fault of Macron trying to burnish his napoleonic credentials ahead of the election. Must be our fault of course.

    And in perfect timing the radio 4 news headlines started with Macron saying the fishing vow was a test of the UK’s international credibility! Not perhaps anyone saying the Fishing row is a test of France’s credibility to follow the treaty they are signed up to via the wonderful EU……
    Does anyone have a link to the EU regulations regarding position locators on fishing boats? In the age of GPS etc, it has certainly long been possible to record such things cheaply and with a small box of tricks...

    It is my understanding that "digital tachographs" are pretty standard in the trucking industry - and have been for a while.
    The head of the port of Calais on the BBC said just now that the small boats do not have GPS

    I am sorry but that is very difficult to believe not least for location if the vessel, no matter how small, finds itself in difficulty

    It is also true that it is Jersey who are taking the hard line with these boats and Macron is elevating it to an EU wide call to arms, and going as far as bringing in the NI protocol which has nothing to do with it

    We know who is playing politics, and it is not Jersey or Boris
    It’s not even that Jersey is taking the hard line - they have bent the rules as far as they can by taking the widest possible evidence they receive to agree a licence but there are boats saying they have rights and providing absolutely zero evidence.

    Jersey has been trying to get the EU to provide the evidence as it’s supposed to come through the EU but it’s not flowing and then when they tried to approach the French authorities direct to try and speed it up and smooth it over they were told this was not allowed!!

    Imagine you decide you wanted settled status in France and the Mairie tell you that you must provide various documents to prove you have lived there and worked there for a period of time. If you say to the authorities “sorry mate, you will just have to take my word for it” they would laugh in your face and deport you. And I would expect the UK gov to say “you knew the rules so you need to provide the evidence”.
    I wouldn't normally take the UK Government's side in anything but on this occasion France is clearly in the wrong. However I think the UK response shows that it is in the (perceived) interest of both Macron and Johnson to pick a fight over something trivial - Macron for re-election, Johnson to maintain an 'enemy' to disguise the problems of Brexit.

    If we wanted to diffuse the situation, we would just get the States of Jersey to put out a statement saying that the number of applications for licences had been much lower than expected and inviting local fishermen who used to fish in local waters to apply.
    The issue is realtively small; however imo the principle is not.
  • MattW said:

    PJH said:

    boulay said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    Except the initial and largest furore has not been with “this Boris Johnson government” it kicked off when the French fisheries minister was trying to bully the Jersey government - not a Boris in sight - into ignoring the terms of the treaty the EU signed on behalf of France (the beauty of being in the EU where you don’t have control over everything….).

    The States of Jersey followed to the letter the terms of the treaty and when the French realised that a few of their fishermen hadn’t kept their records (I wonder why??) that they wanted to ignore the treaty as that’s what members of rules based organisations do…..

    So the parts of the UK who naturally hate the UK think it must be the fault of our evil politicians and in no way the blame on the wildly socialist fishing minister whose constituency is dependent on the fishing vote, and of course in no way the fault of Macron trying to burnish his napoleonic credentials ahead of the election. Must be our fault of course.

    And in perfect timing the radio 4 news headlines started with Macron saying the fishing vow was a test of the UK’s international credibility! Not perhaps anyone saying the Fishing row is a test of France’s credibility to follow the treaty they are signed up to via the wonderful EU……
    Does anyone have a link to the EU regulations regarding position locators on fishing boats? In the age of GPS etc, it has certainly long been possible to record such things cheaply and with a small box of tricks...

    It is my understanding that "digital tachographs" are pretty standard in the trucking industry - and have been for a while.
    The head of the port of Calais on the BBC said just now that the small boats do not have GPS

    I am sorry but that is very difficult to believe not least for location if the vessel, no matter how small, finds itself in difficulty

    It is also true that it is Jersey who are taking the hard line with these boats and Macron is elevating it to an EU wide call to arms, and going as far as bringing in the NI protocol which has nothing to do with it

    We know who is playing politics, and it is not Jersey or Boris
    It’s not even that Jersey is taking the hard line - they have bent the rules as far as they can by taking the widest possible evidence they receive to agree a licence but there are boats saying they have rights and providing absolutely zero evidence.

    Jersey has been trying to get the EU to provide the evidence as it’s supposed to come through the EU but it’s not flowing and then when they tried to approach the French authorities direct to try and speed it up and smooth it over they were told this was not allowed!!

    Imagine you decide you wanted settled status in France and the Mairie tell you that you must provide various documents to prove you have lived there and worked there for a period of time. If you say to the authorities “sorry mate, you will just have to take my word for it” they would laugh in your face and deport you. And I would expect the UK gov to say “you knew the rules so you need to provide the evidence”.
    I wouldn't normally take the UK Government's side in anything but on this occasion France is clearly in the wrong. However I think the UK response shows that it is in the (perceived) interest of both Macron and Johnson to pick a fight over something trivial - Macron for re-election, Johnson to maintain an 'enemy' to disguise the problems of Brexit.

    If we wanted to diffuse the situation, we would just get the States of Jersey to put out a statement saying that the number of applications for licences had been much lower than expected and inviting local fishermen who used to fish in local waters to apply.
    The issue is realtively small; however imo the principle is not.
    Boris should ask for it to be referred to the ECJ and sit back and watch the fun and games

    Irony comes to mind but it would really be very interesting
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,145
    PJH said:

    boulay said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    Except the initial and largest furore has not been with “this Boris Johnson government” it kicked off when the French fisheries minister was trying to bully the Jersey government - not a Boris in sight - into ignoring the terms of the treaty the EU signed on behalf of France (the beauty of being in the EU where you don’t have control over everything….).

    The States of Jersey followed to the letter the terms of the treaty and when the French realised that a few of their fishermen hadn’t kept their records (I wonder why??) that they wanted to ignore the treaty as that’s what members of rules based organisations do…..

    So the parts of the UK who naturally hate the UK think it must be the fault of our evil politicians and in no way the blame on the wildly socialist fishing minister whose constituency is dependent on the fishing vote, and of course in no way the fault of Macron trying to burnish his napoleonic credentials ahead of the election. Must be our fault of course.

    And in perfect timing the radio 4 news headlines started with Macron saying the fishing vow was a test of the UK’s international credibility! Not perhaps anyone saying the Fishing row is a test of France’s credibility to follow the treaty they are signed up to via the wonderful EU……
    Does anyone have a link to the EU regulations regarding position locators on fishing boats? In the age of GPS etc, it has certainly long been possible to record such things cheaply and with a small box of tricks...

    It is my understanding that "digital tachographs" are pretty standard in the trucking industry - and have been for a while.
    The head of the port of Calais on the BBC said just now that the small boats do not have GPS

    I am sorry but that is very difficult to believe not least for location if the vessel, no matter how small, finds itself in difficulty

    It is also true that it is Jersey who are taking the hard line with these boats and Macron is elevating it to an EU wide call to arms, and going as far as bringing in the NI protocol which has nothing to do with it

    We know who is playing politics, and it is not Jersey or Boris
    It’s not even that Jersey is taking the hard line - they have bent the rules as far as they can by taking the widest possible evidence they receive to agree a licence but there are boats saying they have rights and providing absolutely zero evidence.

    Jersey has been trying to get the EU to provide the evidence as it’s supposed to come through the EU but it’s not flowing and then when they tried to approach the French authorities direct to try and speed it up and smooth it over they were told this was not allowed!!

    Imagine you decide you wanted settled status in France and the Mairie tell you that you must provide various documents to prove you have lived there and worked there for a period of time. If you say to the authorities “sorry mate, you will just have to take my word for it” they would laugh in your face and deport you. And I would expect the UK gov to say “you knew the rules so you need to provide the evidence”.
    I wouldn't normally take the UK Government's side in anything but on this occasion France is clearly in the wrong. However I think the UK response shows that it is in the (perceived) interest of both Macron and Johnson to pick a fight over something trivial - Macron for re-election, Johnson to maintain an 'enemy' to disguise the problems of Brexit.

    If we wanted to diffuse the situation, we would just get the States of Jersey to put out a statement saying that the number of applications for licences had been much lower than expected and inviting local fishermen who used to fish in local waters to apply.
    I'd determine that after about 5 extensions since March to the time allowed for data to be supplied (and where data having been supplied it having been done just before the deadline) that the licensing process has now run it's course and is finished.

    Granting that many extensions in response to threats and tantrums is just pandering, and guarantees that it will happen again. It was time to stop 6 months ago.


  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914

    Its quite clear that the issue in the Jersey/France dispute is entirely due to a small proportion of French boats not having the proof they're required to have to get the licence. Either because they're not entitled to one and are trying it on, or would have been but were cooking the books thus destroyed their own evidence.

    Its quite amusing then seeing certain types on this site and elsewhere trying to "both sides" this, or saying essentially "I don't know how, but I just know Boris is to blame".

    Some people have just closed their minds to evidence and are acting as delusional as Trump trying to both sides the white supremacist violence.

    Philip Thompson in 'We are good and right, the French are bad and wrong' shocker!
  • Lovely to see Brexteers looking imploringly to the EU to put Johnny Crappeau in his place.
  • MattW said:

    PJH said:

    boulay said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    Except the initial and largest furore has not been with “this Boris Johnson government” it kicked off when the French fisheries minister was trying to bully the Jersey government - not a Boris in sight - into ignoring the terms of the treaty the EU signed on behalf of France (the beauty of being in the EU where you don’t have control over everything….).

    The States of Jersey followed to the letter the terms of the treaty and when the French realised that a few of their fishermen hadn’t kept their records (I wonder why??) that they wanted to ignore the treaty as that’s what members of rules based organisations do…..

    So the parts of the UK who naturally hate the UK think it must be the fault of our evil politicians and in no way the blame on the wildly socialist fishing minister whose constituency is dependent on the fishing vote, and of course in no way the fault of Macron trying to burnish his napoleonic credentials ahead of the election. Must be our fault of course.

    And in perfect timing the radio 4 news headlines started with Macron saying the fishing vow was a test of the UK’s international credibility! Not perhaps anyone saying the Fishing row is a test of France’s credibility to follow the treaty they are signed up to via the wonderful EU……
    Does anyone have a link to the EU regulations regarding position locators on fishing boats? In the age of GPS etc, it has certainly long been possible to record such things cheaply and with a small box of tricks...

    It is my understanding that "digital tachographs" are pretty standard in the trucking industry - and have been for a while.
    The head of the port of Calais on the BBC said just now that the small boats do not have GPS

    I am sorry but that is very difficult to believe not least for location if the vessel, no matter how small, finds itself in difficulty

    It is also true that it is Jersey who are taking the hard line with these boats and Macron is elevating it to an EU wide call to arms, and going as far as bringing in the NI protocol which has nothing to do with it

    We know who is playing politics, and it is not Jersey or Boris
    It’s not even that Jersey is taking the hard line - they have bent the rules as far as they can by taking the widest possible evidence they receive to agree a licence but there are boats saying they have rights and providing absolutely zero evidence.

    Jersey has been trying to get the EU to provide the evidence as it’s supposed to come through the EU but it’s not flowing and then when they tried to approach the French authorities direct to try and speed it up and smooth it over they were told this was not allowed!!

    Imagine you decide you wanted settled status in France and the Mairie tell you that you must provide various documents to prove you have lived there and worked there for a period of time. If you say to the authorities “sorry mate, you will just have to take my word for it” they would laugh in your face and deport you. And I would expect the UK gov to say “you knew the rules so you need to provide the evidence”.
    I wouldn't normally take the UK Government's side in anything but on this occasion France is clearly in the wrong. However I think the UK response shows that it is in the (perceived) interest of both Macron and Johnson to pick a fight over something trivial - Macron for re-election, Johnson to maintain an 'enemy' to disguise the problems of Brexit.

    If we wanted to diffuse the situation, we would just get the States of Jersey to put out a statement saying that the number of applications for licences had been much lower than expected and inviting local fishermen who used to fish in local waters to apply.
    The issue is realtively small; however imo the principle is not.
    Boris should ask for it to be referred to the ECJ and sit back and watch the fun and games

    Irony comes to mind but it would really be very interesting
    The ECJ aren't the relevant court for disputes like this are they?

    Which is quite right as the ECJ aren't a neutral court, they're a politically partisan one.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2021
    kinabalu said:

    Its quite clear that the issue in the Jersey/France dispute is entirely due to a small proportion of French boats not having the proof they're required to have to get the licence. Either because they're not entitled to one and are trying it on, or would have been but were cooking the books thus destroyed their own evidence.

    Its quite amusing then seeing certain types on this site and elsewhere trying to "both sides" this, or saying essentially "I don't know how, but I just know Boris is to blame".

    Some people have just closed their minds to evidence and are acting as delusional as Trump trying to both sides the white supremacist violence.

    Philip Thompson in 'We are good and right, the French are bad and wrong' shocker!
    Except the reason we are right has been given.

    You have no reason you're just taking partisan sides without a reason.

    Incidentally the French aren't all wrong, 98% of those who applied for licences were given them. They're quite happily still doing their jobs, because they're able to.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,145

    MattW said:

    PJH said:

    boulay said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    Except the initial and largest furore has not been with “this Boris Johnson government” it kicked off when the French fisheries minister was trying to bully the Jersey government - not a Boris in sight - into ignoring the terms of the treaty the EU signed on behalf of France (the beauty of being in the EU where you don’t have control over everything….).

    The States of Jersey followed to the letter the terms of the treaty and when the French realised that a few of their fishermen hadn’t kept their records (I wonder why??) that they wanted to ignore the treaty as that’s what members of rules based organisations do…..

    So the parts of the UK who naturally hate the UK think it must be the fault of our evil politicians and in no way the blame on the wildly socialist fishing minister whose constituency is dependent on the fishing vote, and of course in no way the fault of Macron trying to burnish his napoleonic credentials ahead of the election. Must be our fault of course.

    And in perfect timing the radio 4 news headlines started with Macron saying the fishing vow was a test of the UK’s international credibility! Not perhaps anyone saying the Fishing row is a test of France’s credibility to follow the treaty they are signed up to via the wonderful EU……
    Does anyone have a link to the EU regulations regarding position locators on fishing boats? In the age of GPS etc, it has certainly long been possible to record such things cheaply and with a small box of tricks...

    It is my understanding that "digital tachographs" are pretty standard in the trucking industry - and have been for a while.
    The head of the port of Calais on the BBC said just now that the small boats do not have GPS

    I am sorry but that is very difficult to believe not least for location if the vessel, no matter how small, finds itself in difficulty

    It is also true that it is Jersey who are taking the hard line with these boats and Macron is elevating it to an EU wide call to arms, and going as far as bringing in the NI protocol which has nothing to do with it

    We know who is playing politics, and it is not Jersey or Boris
    It’s not even that Jersey is taking the hard line - they have bent the rules as far as they can by taking the widest possible evidence they receive to agree a licence but there are boats saying they have rights and providing absolutely zero evidence.

    Jersey has been trying to get the EU to provide the evidence as it’s supposed to come through the EU but it’s not flowing and then when they tried to approach the French authorities direct to try and speed it up and smooth it over they were told this was not allowed!!

    Imagine you decide you wanted settled status in France and the Mairie tell you that you must provide various documents to prove you have lived there and worked there for a period of time. If you say to the authorities “sorry mate, you will just have to take my word for it” they would laugh in your face and deport you. And I would expect the UK gov to say “you knew the rules so you need to provide the evidence”.
    I wouldn't normally take the UK Government's side in anything but on this occasion France is clearly in the wrong. However I think the UK response shows that it is in the (perceived) interest of both Macron and Johnson to pick a fight over something trivial - Macron for re-election, Johnson to maintain an 'enemy' to disguise the problems of Brexit.

    If we wanted to diffuse the situation, we would just get the States of Jersey to put out a statement saying that the number of applications for licences had been much lower than expected and inviting local fishermen who used to fish in local waters to apply.
    The issue is realtively small; however imo the principle is not.
    Boris should ask for it to be referred to the ECJ and sit back and watch the fun and games

    Irony comes to mind but it would really be very interesting
    The ECJ does not have jurisdiction; it is the special body set up to oversee the FTA. IIRC it was a bit of a fight to get that.

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,764



    If they want a renegotiation they should come out and say so, instead they're trying to claim they want the deal enforced while throwing a strop about the deal being enforced.

    They are a sovereign country and can do what they like so "should' doesn't come into it. They aren't bound by your personal and abstract notion of what constitutes appropriate behaviour.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,678
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding.
    If he's got a good case on the fishing why is it only France kicking up over the licences? If the British system was unfair, surely it would have affected more countries than France? This is bullying and blackmail, pure and simple.
  • Dura_Ace said:



    If they want a renegotiation they should come out and say so, instead they're trying to claim they want the deal enforced while throwing a strop about the deal being enforced.

    They are a sovereign country and can do what they like so "should' doesn't come into it. They aren't bound by your personal and abstract notion of what constitutes appropriate behaviour.
    Not entirely sovereign. They're a party of the EU and the EU signed this deal not France.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304

    kjh said:

    Its quite clear that the issue in the Jersey/France dispute is entirely due to a small proportion of French boats not having the proof they're required to have to get the licence. Either because they're not entitled to one and are trying it on, or would have been but were cooking the books thus destroyed their own evidence.

    Its quite amusing then seeing certain types on this site and elsewhere trying to "both sides" this, or saying essentially "I don't know how, but I just know Boris is to blame".

    Some people have just closed their minds to evidence and are acting as delusional as Trump trying to both sides the white supremacist violence.

    Excuse me. You can't just say it is either/or just the two options you have decided it is. You might be right but you don't know that. It seems me you have the closed mind you are accusing others of.

    I completely accept it might be the options you stated. I, like nobody else here has a clue. You don't seem to accept the options put by a French representative this morning eg some Fishermen have replaced boats or small boats don't or haven't kept those records but have prima facia evidence they fished the waters.
    All boats have landing logs so it should not be difficult to prove unless they did nit fish in those waters
    That might well be true, but it depends what proof is actually required. How do you know it isn't a case of not showing the 'right type of proof'. Eg prima facia evidence of fishing those waters but not the proof required. Clearly seems to be the case with the sold boat scenario. Clearly if a boat owner can not show any evidence then it is cut and dry.

    I can't believe that people on this site are deciding who is right and wrong with none of the actual evidence and probably not what the actual rules are.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,678
    The view from Jersey:

    In order to obtain a Jersey fishing licence, French vessels must prove that they fished in Island waters for a minimum of ten days in 2017, 2018 or 2019.

    Jersey’s government says that, according to the terms of the Brexit deal, they can only accept evidence of this in the form of logbook data – something vessels should have been compiling when they fished in local waters under the old Granville Bay Treaty.


    https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2021/10/29/confrontation-on-the-horizon-in-fishing-row/
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding.
    If he's got a good case on the fishing why is it only France kicking up over the licences? If the British system was unfair, surely it would have affected more countries than France? This is bullying and blackmail, pure and simple.
    Take your UJ specs off. You might be able to see your nose for a change.
  • MattW said:

    PJH said:

    boulay said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    Except the initial and largest furore has not been with “this Boris Johnson government” it kicked off when the French fisheries minister was trying to bully the Jersey government - not a Boris in sight - into ignoring the terms of the treaty the EU signed on behalf of France (the beauty of being in the EU where you don’t have control over everything….).

    The States of Jersey followed to the letter the terms of the treaty and when the French realised that a few of their fishermen hadn’t kept their records (I wonder why??) that they wanted to ignore the treaty as that’s what members of rules based organisations do…..

    So the parts of the UK who naturally hate the UK think it must be the fault of our evil politicians and in no way the blame on the wildly socialist fishing minister whose constituency is dependent on the fishing vote, and of course in no way the fault of Macron trying to burnish his napoleonic credentials ahead of the election. Must be our fault of course.

    And in perfect timing the radio 4 news headlines started with Macron saying the fishing vow was a test of the UK’s international credibility! Not perhaps anyone saying the Fishing row is a test of France’s credibility to follow the treaty they are signed up to via the wonderful EU……
    Does anyone have a link to the EU regulations regarding position locators on fishing boats? In the age of GPS etc, it has certainly long been possible to record such things cheaply and with a small box of tricks...

    It is my understanding that "digital tachographs" are pretty standard in the trucking industry - and have been for a while.
    The head of the port of Calais on the BBC said just now that the small boats do not have GPS

    I am sorry but that is very difficult to believe not least for location if the vessel, no matter how small, finds itself in difficulty

    It is also true that it is Jersey who are taking the hard line with these boats and Macron is elevating it to an EU wide call to arms, and going as far as bringing in the NI protocol which has nothing to do with it

    We know who is playing politics, and it is not Jersey or Boris
    It’s not even that Jersey is taking the hard line - they have bent the rules as far as they can by taking the widest possible evidence they receive to agree a licence but there are boats saying they have rights and providing absolutely zero evidence.

    Jersey has been trying to get the EU to provide the evidence as it’s supposed to come through the EU but it’s not flowing and then when they tried to approach the French authorities direct to try and speed it up and smooth it over they were told this was not allowed!!

    Imagine you decide you wanted settled status in France and the Mairie tell you that you must provide various documents to prove you have lived there and worked there for a period of time. If you say to the authorities “sorry mate, you will just have to take my word for it” they would laugh in your face and deport you. And I would expect the UK gov to say “you knew the rules so you need to provide the evidence”.
    I wouldn't normally take the UK Government's side in anything but on this occasion France is clearly in the wrong. However I think the UK response shows that it is in the (perceived) interest of both Macron and Johnson to pick a fight over something trivial - Macron for re-election, Johnson to maintain an 'enemy' to disguise the problems of Brexit.

    If we wanted to diffuse the situation, we would just get the States of Jersey to put out a statement saying that the number of applications for licences had been much lower than expected and inviting local fishermen who used to fish in local waters to apply.
    The issue is realtively small; however imo the principle is not.
    Boris should ask for it to be referred to the ECJ and sit back and watch the fun and games

    Irony comes to mind but it would really be very interesting
    The ECJ aren't the relevant court for disputes like this are they?

    Which is quite right as the ECJ aren't a neutral court, they're a politically partisan one.
    I only put it out here for pure irony

    However, I to find it mildly amusing that so many think that the UK are at the centre of this dispute when it is Jersey who are following the trade requirements and this dispute is for the EU to resolve, not France, and they will have to resolve it in accordance with the trade deal they agreed
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,145
    edited October 2021
    kinabalu said:

    Its quite clear that the issue in the Jersey/France dispute is entirely due to a small proportion of French boats not having the proof they're required to have to get the licence. Either because they're not entitled to one and are trying it on, or would have been but were cooking the books thus destroyed their own evidence.

    Its quite amusing then seeing certain types on this site and elsewhere trying to "both sides" this, or saying essentially "I don't know how, but I just know Boris is to blame".

    Some people have just closed their minds to evidence and are acting as delusional as Trump trying to both sides the white supremacist violence.

    Philip Thompson in 'We are good and right, the French are bad and wrong' shocker!
    In many respects we are good and right on this one.

    It is not that long ago that French farmers were burning hundreds of sheep imported from the UK alive in lorries in protest at legal trade.

    And only a couple of years since there was an incident of a petrol bomb being thrown into a UK fishing boat at sea by a French fisherman.

    A firm stance is necessary.
  • Lovely to see Brexteers looking imploringly to the EU to put Johnny Crappeau in his place.

    You do know it is a Scottish boat at the centre of this issue

    No need to implore the enforcement of an agreed trade deal as it is a written agreement France is threatening to breach
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304

    The view from Jersey:

    In order to obtain a Jersey fishing licence, French vessels must prove that they fished in Island waters for a minimum of ten days in 2017, 2018 or 2019.

    Jersey’s government says that, according to the terms of the Brexit deal, they can only accept evidence of this in the form of logbook data – something vessels should have been compiling when they fished in local waters under the old Granville Bay Treaty.


    https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2021/10/29/confrontation-on-the-horizon-in-fishing-row/

    And you have replaced your boat in the last 5 years?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,678
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding.
    If he's got a good case on the fishing why is it only France kicking up over the licences? If the British system was unfair, surely it would have affected more countries than France? This is bullying and blackmail, pure and simple.
    Take your UJ specs off. You might be able to see your nose for a change.
    Not exactly engaging with the argument, are you?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,145
    There's also quite interesting background in the number of fishing disputes the EU engage in.

    Currently they are at loggerheads with Norway.

    Before that it was the Faroe Islands for a number of years.

    The cry of the EuCo Bird cry is always "X is breaking international law."
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433

    Dura_Ace said:



    If they want a renegotiation they should come out and say so, instead they're trying to claim they want the deal enforced while throwing a strop about the deal being enforced.

    They are a sovereign country and can do what they like so "should' doesn't come into it. They aren't bound by your personal and abstract notion of what constitutes appropriate behaviour.
    Not entirely sovereign. They're a party of the EU and the EU signed this deal not France.
    I think the underlying issue might be that France is peeved with the EU on fishing, and is trying now to stand up for its fishermen in Brussels.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,883
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Its quite clear that the issue in the Jersey/France dispute is entirely due to a small proportion of French boats not having the proof they're required to have to get the licence. Either because they're not entitled to one and are trying it on, or would have been but were cooking the books thus destroyed their own evidence.

    Its quite amusing then seeing certain types on this site and elsewhere trying to "both sides" this, or saying essentially "I don't know how, but I just know Boris is to blame".

    Some people have just closed their minds to evidence and are acting as delusional as Trump trying to both sides the white supremacist violence.

    Excuse me. You can't just say it is either/or just the two options you have decided it is. You might be right but you don't know that. It seems me you have the closed mind you are accusing others of.

    I completely accept it might be the options you stated. I, like nobody else here has a clue. You don't seem to accept the options put by a French representative this morning eg some Fishermen have replaced boats or small boats don't or haven't kept those records but have prima facia evidence they fished the waters.
    All boats have landing logs so it should not be difficult to prove unless they did nit fish in those waters
    That might well be true, but it depends what proof is actually required. How do you know it isn't a case of not showing the 'right type of proof'. Eg prima facia evidence of fishing those waters but not the proof required. Clearly seems to be the case with the sold boat scenario. Clearly if a boat owner can not show any evidence then it is cut and dry.

    I can't believe that people on this site are deciding who is right and wrong with none of the actual evidence and probably not what the actual rules are.
    The Jersey authorities have been very flexible, even though the treaty is clear on what evidence is required, and tried to be pragmatic

    “At the end of September, a total of 64 licences were issued, adding to the existing 47. Meanwhile, temporary licences were given to 31 vessels for which almost enough acceptable data had been provided. A total of 75 vessels which have not met the criteria for a licence have been given until the end of the month to cease fishing in Jersey waters. However, until that time, the government will still consider any historical fishing data which they provide.”

    So clearly even when they are considering “any historical data they provide” there are fishers who cannot even pass that low bar.
  • kjh said:

    The view from Jersey:

    In order to obtain a Jersey fishing licence, French vessels must prove that they fished in Island waters for a minimum of ten days in 2017, 2018 or 2019.

    Jersey’s government says that, according to the terms of the Brexit deal, they can only accept evidence of this in the form of logbook data – something vessels should have been compiling when they fished in local waters under the old Granville Bay Treaty.


    https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2021/10/29/confrontation-on-the-horizon-in-fishing-row/

    And you have replaced your boat in the last 5 years?
    It would appear that must be the definition in the treaty agreed with UK-EU-Jersey
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding. And that vaccine trashing he did was abysmal. I marked him down bigtime for that. Moved him down a whole drawer. He's in the middle one of 5 now and he's not totally safe there.
    He hasn’t got a “good case” on this fishing thing. He has no case. The French govt headed by Monsieur Macron are members of the EU, a rules based organisation no less, and under the terms of this membership (the leaving of which is so dreadful by the way) the EU are responsible for the management of fishing rights in EU waters and signed, as a rules based organisation, a treaty which laid out the conditions for continued fishing arrangements.

    The fact that the French discovered that a number of their boats had been very forgetful in keeping their logs of their fishing up to date, or even keeping them at all (perhaps some French fishermen think that writing is for softies like Moliere and it’s nothing to do with ensuring they can’t be busted for overfishing or fishing in protected areas, no sir) means that under the terms of the treaty that the rules based organisation signed on behalf of France in line with their rules of the organisation has left the French fishers caught at low tide with their waders round their ankles.

    So Macron has no case. The prosecutors of Dreyfus had more of a case. The best lawyers in Spiral would tell him he doesn’t have a case. What he does have a case of however is BDS and election fever.
    Sorry but putting only the UK side of the case doesn't show that France doesn't have one. It more likely shows your bias.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,623
    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    We’re getting binary again on a topic, this time China vs the west and emissions. That’s not the right way to see it, albeit I can see it’s convenient to either Tice types or West hating far lefties.

    The choice is not either China reduces emissions or we do. If China is slow to act - which, as commented above, compared with India or Brazil for example it is not - then the West is not “picking up the slack”. For a start the West is a useless term when it comes to climate change because of how much worse the US and Australia are than Europe or Japan. They are not the same bloc when it comes to emissions.

    Everyone needs to cut emissions, and fast. China needs to cut them a huge amount. So does the US. The poorer developing world need to develop in a greener way, but they will self evidently need help getting there. Australia and the Gulf states have absolutely no excuse. And we in Europe need to cut too, to do our bit. We have the technology and the business opportunity to do quite a lot.

    To return to the traffic cop analogy. The police should be catching rapists and murderers, and they should also be policing speeding and drink driving.

    Great post, and I'd add something. I see shades of previous debates on things like 'white privilege' and 'positive discrimination'. No acceptance whatsoever of any moral obligation on the present arising from the past. The past is all very vivid and pertinent when celebrating 'our great history', yet it mysteriously becomes an irrelevance when it comes to the question of whether it should drive actions and behaviour today that we find a little bit onerous and unpalatable.
    But that’s where we probably differ. I don’t think it’s helpful to introduce too much of a moral dimension to a scientific and technical challenge like this. It risks turning it into culture war when it’s not, it’s physics. If we want to achieve net zero globally, we can’t afford to turn climate change into a partisan issue.
    That's definitely a point. It has to be about whatever works best. The left/right (in the west) partisan angle seems to come more from disagreement about solutions. In particular, on the right, a suspicion/dislike of anything too collectivist, or of ceding power beyond the nation state, or of measures which make demands on or add costs to our lifestyle. But I'm actually heartened by the degree of consensus.

    1. The planet is warming.
    2. Human activity is to a great extent causing it.
    3. Action is needed urgently to address this.
    4. If it isn't taken, there will be terrible consequences.

    The vast majority of politicians accept this, I think.

    Course, one who doesn't is the betting favourite for next US president. So fingers crossed there.
    I don’t worry so much about US politics - whilst important particularly in terms of global consensus, so much of their policy is devolved to the states that they will make progress on emissions regardless of who’s in the White House. It’s also still 3 years off.

    Aside from China, India and Brazil are most worrying. India because it is growing rapidly, its growth is extremely coal-powered, and there is no indication there is any political will to change this. Brazil because it sits on one of the key ecosystems vital to the absorption of CO2, it is one of the world’s biggest intensive producers of both beef and soy for US animal feed both of which require deforestation, and its current government really doesn’t give a damn. To a lesser extent Russia and Australia are also problems, both with recalcitrant leaders, both big contributors to fossil fuel extraction.
  • kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding. And that vaccine trashing he did was abysmal. I marked him down bigtime for that. Moved him down a whole drawer. He's in the middle one of 5 now and he's not totally safe there.
    He hasn’t got a “good case” on this fishing thing. He has no case. The French govt headed by Monsieur Macron are members of the EU, a rules based organisation no less, and under the terms of this membership (the leaving of which is so dreadful by the way) the EU are responsible for the management of fishing rights in EU waters and signed, as a rules based organisation, a treaty which laid out the conditions for continued fishing arrangements.

    The fact that the French discovered that a number of their boats had been very forgetful in keeping their logs of their fishing up to date, or even keeping them at all (perhaps some French fishermen think that writing is for softies like Moliere and it’s nothing to do with ensuring they can’t be busted for overfishing or fishing in protected areas, no sir) means that under the terms of the treaty that the rules based organisation signed on behalf of France in line with their rules of the organisation has left the French fishers caught at low tide with their waders round their ankles.

    So Macron has no case. The prosecutors of Dreyfus had more of a case. The best lawyers in Spiral would tell him he doesn’t have a case. What he does have a case of however is BDS and election fever.
    Sorry but putting only the UK side of the case doesn't show that France doesn't have one. It more likely shows your bias.
    I cannot emphasise enough this dispute is with Jersey and why France is threatening to close St Malo port from Tuesday and cut off electricity to Jersey

    It must be time for even the most devote pro France supporter to realise they are on the wrong side of this particular argument between Jersey, France and the EU
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,623
    The French situation is as commented above an example where recourse to the CJEU isn’t such a bad idea. Their record of rulings over the decades is generally one of sensible decisions based on facts. They also take out the bilateral silliness from disputes.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304

    kjh said:

    The view from Jersey:

    In order to obtain a Jersey fishing licence, French vessels must prove that they fished in Island waters for a minimum of ten days in 2017, 2018 or 2019.

    Jersey’s government says that, according to the terms of the Brexit deal, they can only accept evidence of this in the form of logbook data – something vessels should have been compiling when they fished in local waters under the old Granville Bay Treaty.


    https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2021/10/29/confrontation-on-the-horizon-in-fishing-row/

    And you have replaced your boat in the last 5 years?
    It would appear that must be the definition in the treaty agreed with UK-EU-Jersey
    Which was the point I was making in my first post BigG. Potentially the difference between a pragmatic approach and 'the rules are the rules'.

    As I said I have no idea, but I hate this business of people assuming it must be the French fault for no other reason than we are British so it can't be our fault. It might be us, it might be them, it might be both.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,678
    kjh said:

    The view from Jersey:

    In order to obtain a Jersey fishing licence, French vessels must prove that they fished in Island waters for a minimum of ten days in 2017, 2018 or 2019.

    Jersey’s government says that, according to the terms of the Brexit deal, they can only accept evidence of this in the form of logbook data – something vessels should have been compiling when they fished in local waters under the old Granville Bay Treaty.


    https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2021/10/29/confrontation-on-the-horizon-in-fishing-row/

    And you have replaced your boat in the last 5 years?
    And threw away your logbook? How foolish!

    Under the previous treaty French boats should have kept logs of where they fished - not doing so was a prosecutable offence.

    Under the new treaty to qualify for a licence they have to produce this log book - many have, and been awarded licences.

    So the question arises, who are this minority who don't have log books, and why not?

    Want a licence - produce a log book, or face prosecution under the old treaty.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,678
    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding. And that vaccine trashing he did was abysmal. I marked him down bigtime for that. Moved him down a whole drawer. He's in the middle one of 5 now and he's not totally safe there.
    He hasn’t got a “good case” on this fishing thing. He has no case. The French govt headed by Monsieur Macron are members of the EU, a rules based organisation no less, and under the terms of this membership (the leaving of which is so dreadful by the way) the EU are responsible for the management of fishing rights in EU waters and signed, as a rules based organisation, a treaty which laid out the conditions for continued fishing arrangements.

    The fact that the French discovered that a number of their boats had been very forgetful in keeping their logs of their fishing up to date, or even keeping them at all (perhaps some French fishermen think that writing is for softies like Moliere and it’s nothing to do with ensuring they can’t be busted for overfishing or fishing in protected areas, no sir) means that under the terms of the treaty that the rules based organisation signed on behalf of France in line with their rules of the organisation has left the French fishers caught at low tide with their waders round their ankles.

    So Macron has no case. The prosecutors of Dreyfus had more of a case. The best lawyers in Spiral would tell him he doesn’t have a case. What he does have a case of however is BDS and election fever.
    Sorry but putting only the UK side of the case doesn't show that France doesn't have one. It more likely shows your bias.
    What is "the French side of the case"?

    If you fished there previously under treaty terms you had to keep a log.

    So the French are arguing that fishermen who breached the previous treaty should be awarded licences under the new treaty?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,822
    edited October 2021

    Lovely to see Brexteers looking imploringly to the EU to put Johnny Crappeau in his place.

    You do know it is a Scottish boat at the centre of this issue

    No need to implore the enforcement of an agreed trade deal as it is a written agreement France is threatening to breach
    Surely you mean a British boat?

    Couldn't give much of a toss about a vessel based in Shoreham that fishes off the coast of France and is owned by a subsidiary of a Canadian seafood processor. I believe it's a scallop dredger and any impediment to its destructive progress is a good thing imo.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304
    edited October 2021

    kjh said:

    The view from Jersey:

    In order to obtain a Jersey fishing licence, French vessels must prove that they fished in Island waters for a minimum of ten days in 2017, 2018 or 2019.

    Jersey’s government says that, according to the terms of the Brexit deal, they can only accept evidence of this in the form of logbook data – something vessels should have been compiling when they fished in local waters under the old Granville Bay Treaty.


    https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2021/10/29/confrontation-on-the-horizon-in-fishing-row/

    And you have replaced your boat in the last 5 years?
    And threw away your logbook? How foolish!

    Under the previous treaty French boats should have kept logs of where they fished - not doing so was a prosecutable offence.

    Under the new treaty to qualify for a licence they have to produce this log book - many have, and been awarded licences.

    So the question arises, who are this minority who don't have log books, and why not?

    Want a licence - produce a log book, or face prosecution under the old treaty.
    I assumed a log book went with the boat. It is one of the reasons being given.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding.
    If he's got a good case on the fishing why is it only France kicking up over the licences? If the British system was unfair, surely it would have affected more countries than France? This is bullying and blackmail, pure and simple.
    Take your UJ specs off. You might be able to see your nose for a change.
    Not exactly engaging with the argument, are you?
    Life's too short for fool's errands. Especially mine. I'm 61. But here's my take. Macron is showboating for domestic political reasons. Exactly the same as Johnson has made a specialty of. He will have a case. There'll be something there. There always has to be something there unless you're a total charlatan like Trump. I don't know all the ins and outs of it and I don't believe anybody on here who says they do. People are simply taking kneejerk positions - the most popular kneejerk position being the French are totally in the wrong, this coming from people who always manage to pronounce Johnson totally in the right when doing similar. It's all so predictable.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Dura_Ace said:



    If they want a renegotiation they should come out and say so, instead they're trying to claim they want the deal enforced while throwing a strop about the deal being enforced.

    They are a sovereign country and can do what they like so "should' doesn't come into it. They aren't bound by your personal and abstract notion of what constitutes appropriate behaviour.
    Fair point but what is most annoying about them is they act as they do and then they whinge when someone else does it to them. They are rapidly becoming the professional victims of at least Europe.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 14,014
    TimS said:

    The French situation is as commented above an example where recourse to the CJEU isn’t such a bad idea. Their record of rulings over the decades is generally one of sensible decisions based on facts. They also take out the bilateral silliness from disputes.

    That was the point the Norwegian government made in their survey of Norwegian relations with the EU. As the smaller counterparty, protection is more important than freedom to act. The ECJ provides that protection to some extent because its job is to apply the law in an objective way. Absent the ECJ you are leaving it up to the whim of the more powerful party and they certainly won't be taking your interest into account.
  • The Suge makes an unwise foray into that humour malarkey.


  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2021
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    The view from Jersey:

    In order to obtain a Jersey fishing licence, French vessels must prove that they fished in Island waters for a minimum of ten days in 2017, 2018 or 2019.

    Jersey’s government says that, according to the terms of the Brexit deal, they can only accept evidence of this in the form of logbook data – something vessels should have been compiling when they fished in local waters under the old Granville Bay Treaty.


    https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2021/10/29/confrontation-on-the-horizon-in-fishing-row/

    And you have replaced your boat in the last 5 years?
    And threw away your logbook? How foolish!

    Under the previous treaty French boats should have kept logs of where they fished - not doing so was a prosecutable offence.

    Under the new treaty to qualify for a licence they have to produce this log book - many have, and been awarded licences.

    So the question arises, who are this minority who don't have log books, and why not?

    Want a licence - produce a log book, or face prosecution under the old treaty.
    I assumed a log book went with the boat. It is one of the reasons being given.
    Never assume.

    But if the log book went with the boat then wouldn't the boat with the log book have the rights to continue fishing? I'm not entirely certain, but if it was sold as a going concern with all rights attached, then wouldn't the rights have been sold with it?

    Otherwise if they kept the log book, they'd keep the rights.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107
    FF43 said:

    TimS said:

    The French situation is as commented above an example where recourse to the CJEU isn’t such a bad idea. Their record of rulings over the decades is generally one of sensible decisions based on facts. They also take out the bilateral silliness from disputes.

    That was the point the Norwegian government made in their survey of Norwegian relations with the EU. As the smaller counterparty, protection is more important than freedom to act. The ECJ provides that protection to some extent because its job is to apply the law in an objective way. Absent the ECJ you are leaving it up to the whim of the more powerful party and they certainly won't be taking your interest into account.
    No, you have arbitration which is common in treaties. Rather than having a court stuffed with judges from one side of the agreement as the highest arbiter.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,306
    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    We’re getting binary again on a topic, this time China vs the west and emissions. That’s not the right way to see it, albeit I can see it’s convenient to either Tice types or West hating far lefties.

    The choice is not either China reduces emissions or we do. If China is slow to act - which, as commented above, compared with India or Brazil for example it is not - then the West is not “picking up the slack”. For a start the West is a useless term when it comes to climate change because of how much worse the US and Australia are than Europe or Japan. They are not the same bloc when it comes to emissions.

    Everyone needs to cut emissions, and fast. China needs to cut them a huge amount. So does the US. The poorer developing world need to develop in a greener way, but they will self evidently need help getting there. Australia and the Gulf states have absolutely no excuse. And we in Europe need to cut too, to do our bit. We have the technology and the business opportunity to do quite a lot.

    To return to the traffic cop analogy. The police should be catching rapists and murderers, and they should also be policing speeding and drink driving.

    Great post, and I'd add something. I see shades of previous debates on things like 'white privilege' and 'positive discrimination'. No acceptance whatsoever of any moral obligation on the present arising from the past. The past is all very vivid and pertinent when celebrating 'our great history', yet it mysteriously becomes an irrelevance when it comes to the question of whether it should drive actions and behaviour today that we find a little bit onerous and unpalatable.
    But that’s where we probably differ. I don’t think it’s helpful to introduce too much of a moral dimension to a scientific and technical challenge like this. It risks turning it into culture war when it’s not, it’s physics. If we want to achieve net zero globally, we can’t afford to turn climate change into a partisan issue.
    That's definitely a point. It has to be about whatever works best. The left/right (in the west) partisan angle seems to come more from disagreement about solutions. In particular, on the right, a suspicion/dislike of anything too collectivist, or of ceding power beyond the nation state, or of measures which make demands on or add costs to our lifestyle. But I'm actually heartened by the degree of consensus.

    1. The planet is warming.
    2. Human activity is to a great extent causing it.
    3. Action is needed urgently to address this.
    4. If it isn't taken, there will be terrible consequences.

    The vast majority of politicians accept this, I think.

    Course, one who doesn't is the betting favourite for next US president. So fingers crossed there.
    A rising global population combined with an imperative to reduce resource consumption isn't a recipe for a stable world. People often talk as if everyone just needs to "do their bit", but this underestimates the scale of the problem.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding.
    If he's got a good case on the fishing why is it only France kicking up over the licences? If the British system was unfair, surely it would have affected more countries than France? This is bullying and blackmail, pure and simple.
    Take your UJ specs off. You might be able to see your nose for a change.
    Not exactly engaging with the argument, are you?
    Life's too short for fool's errands. Especially mine. I'm 61. But here's my take. Macron is showboating for domestic political reasons. Exactly the same as Johnson has made a specialty of. He will have a case. There'll be something there. There always has to be something there unless you're a total charlatan like Trump. I don't know all the ins and outs of it and I don't believe anybody on here who says they do. People are simply taking kneejerk positions - the most popular kneejerk position being the French are totally in the wrong, this coming from people who always manage to pronounce Johnson totally in the right when doing similar. It's all so predictable.
    As predictable as you will back the non-UK etc side in an argument.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    Dura_Ace said:

    Its quite clear that the issue in the Jersey/France dispute is entirely due to a small proportion of French boats not having the proof they're required to have to get the licence. Either because they're not entitled to one and are trying it on, or would have been but were cooking the books thus destroyed their own evidence.

    Its quite amusing then seeing certain types on this site and elsewhere trying to "both sides" this, or saying essentially "I don't know how, but I just know Boris is to blame".

    Some people have just closed their minds to evidence and are acting as delusional as Trump trying to both sides the white supremacist violence.

    To some it will always be Boris and the UK's fault and they just cannot see any flaw in Macron or the EU as it does not suit their purpose

    It is time to recognise that Jersey is only following rules that in every other case the EU are meticulous in following and enforcing themselves

    Macron is acting as a hypocrite because he has an election to win next year

    It is politics and not very edifying to watch
    France has decided the current agreement doesn't work and are taking a maximal position in order to force a renegotiation. "🤷"
    Perhaps that is so. But I very much seem to recall people condemning thay kind of behaviour as unreasonable. Only people who didn't think it unreasonable could possibly defend the French taking the same stance without looking utterly ridiculous with the double standards.

    Either its ok or it isn't, it cannot be so dependent on the side.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,605
    FF43 said:

    TimS said:

    The French situation is as commented above an example where recourse to the CJEU isn’t such a bad idea. Their record of rulings over the decades is generally one of sensible decisions based on facts. They also take out the bilateral silliness from disputes.

    That was the point the Norwegian government made in their survey of Norwegian relations with the EU. As the smaller counterparty, protection is more important than freedom to act. The ECJ provides that protection to some extent because its job is to apply the law in an objective way. Absent the ECJ you are leaving it up to the whim of the more powerful party and they certainly won't be taking your interest into account.
    "Objective" you're delusional.
This discussion has been closed.